Month: October 2007

Are they one and the same thing? Matt Armstrong makes the case:

Today, bullets and bombs often have a much smaller impact than the propaganda opportunities they create–opportunities to influence public opinion and build public support. For the insurgents, the most common weapon of strategic influence is the improvised explosive device. Tactically, IEDs force the military to be more defensive and less accessible to the Iraqi population. The actual death of Coalition Forces from IEDs is secondary to their utility as propaganda. IEDs simply cannot kill enough personnel to reduce or eliminate American operational capabilities. Instead, they give the world the perception that Iraq is explosive. They are also used in insurgent recruiting all over the Middle East. An Islamic version of the story of David and Goliath, IED videos posted on YouTube and elsewhere are the new “war porn.” Whereas Americans are addicted to grainy green images of high-tech bombs raining down on the enemy, insurgent supporters prefer images of grassroots combat that sticks it to the Man.

No wonder this PR campaign, road-tested in selected cities in Iraq, may soon be ready for wider release.

Jim Fallows’ take on Walt-Mearsheimer.

Hanna Rosin, author of God’s Harvard, wonders what’s going on with the new(ish) power of evangelicals:

Here is something that’s perfectly emblematic to me about this confused moment in evangelical, fundamentalist, whatever you want to call it involvement in politics: Bob Jones III’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. Romney, as we all know, is a Mormon, and we can all imagine what the talk is around the Jones dinner table about the Mormon creed. Hillary Clinton is a lifelong Methodist who has tried hard to make peace with religious America but is only getting cold hard stares back.

Is this the temper of the new fundamentalist avant-garde, still freely offensive about Mormonism but more practical minded in their political alliances? ("As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism," Jones said. "But I’m not voting for a preacher. I’m voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs.") Does this represent progress and political sophistication? Or ever more backwardness? Is this yet more evidence of how Christians have sold their soul for a seat at the table? At the very least, I have to say there is something unseemly, un-Christian one might even say, at the community’s salivating over the prospects of She-Devil’s nomination.

Un-Christian?? Yep: hence the ist.

Karzai was very friendly with the Iranian foreign minister this weekend. He was at a meeting of the Middle Eastern Economic Cooperation Organization. While he was warning that Afghanistan might come under attack by Iran if the US attacked Iran, his friends in Tehran were being more explicit:

"In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons will be fired at enemy bases," said Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards. "This volume and speed of firing would continue," added Chaharbaghi, who is commander of artillery and missiles of the Guards’ ground forces.

Bravado? Bluff? I don’t know. I do know that figuring out how foes react to American initiatives is not something this administration has shown a great deal of aptitude for.

The verdicts have to be arranged for the election, don’t they:

Politically motivated officials at the Pentagon have pushed for convictions of high-profile detainees ahead of the 2008 elections, the former lead prosecutor for terrorism trials at Guantanamo Bay said last night, adding that the pressure played a part in his decision to resign earlier this month.

Er: I think these have historically been described as show trials. And, in the past, they have been preceded by similar kinds of prisoner treatment. Kleiman notes that a politicized uniformed officer is the source. I’m not surprised either.

Fareed has a strong column advising restraint and pespective:

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

When exactly do you say "I love you" in a budding relationship? Answer:

When dLove/dt = zero.

Ouch.

The Iraqi leader is helpless, apparently:

Asharq Al-Awsat: The Turkish Government wants you to arrest their leaders who are present on Iraqi territory.

Talabani: We cannot do that. How can we arrest the leaders who are present in the mountains and surrounded by thousands of men? The Turkish army, with all its power, cannot do that. How can we do it?

Asharq Al-Awsat: What, then, does Nuri al-Maliki mean by his comment about eradicating their bases?

Talabani: I do not think that this is accurate talk. The prime minister and I have the same view, namely, that we cannot send sufficient Iraqi forces to fight the PKK.

And so we head toward conflict. Drezner’s response is roughly mine:

"Oh, shit."

Booman:

"We are this close to seeing the war in Iraq spread to the stable provinces of Northern Iraq…"

Meanwhile, this strikes me as obvious:

If the eight missing Turkish troops turn up in Kurdish hands – or worse yet, mistreated in Kurdish hands – the odds of a Turkish incursion (and the urgency of finding an American response to the PKK’s campaign of provocation) will rise dramatically.

Could NATO be drawn in?

(Photo: This file picture taken 18 November 2006 shows Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) rebels walking a ridge during military exercises in the mountains of northern Iraq’s Kurdish autonomous region. By David Furst/AFP/Getty.)

Who does she think she is these days … Hillary?