Month: February 2010

Michael Yon reports:

Logistics into Afghanistan is a nightmare, and it only gets worse after you cross the border from the north or from Pakistan. By comparison, Iraq “logs” was like a run to a convenience store down the road.  Afghan logs are more like driving from Miami to Seattle for grocery shopping, and then driving the groceries back to Miami while under threat of attack.  Not a speck of exaggeration in that statement.  Enemy logs interdiction was a large constituent of the Soviet defeat, despite that the Soviet Union comprised the entire northern border of Afghanistan.  When the Soviet hammer tried to crack the Afghan rock, the hammer shattered.  The Soviets can easily put people in space and keep them there, but they couldn’t handle backdoor logistics during their Afghan war.  It’s easier to keep people in space than to supply our war here.

Our Coalition is stunningly more effective at logistics than were the Soviets.  For instance, when the British were resupplying small FOBs near Sangin last year—just a short drive from the origin at Camp Bastion—the monthly convoys were major operations that drained needed combat power, and still vehicles were destroyed with casualties.  So powerful are some of the bombs that they can launch the ultra-armored American MRAPs into the air, flipping them like turtles, often breaking the backs of soldiers.  Even today, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is making moves to facilitate allies to get more counter-IED gear, such as MRAPs, which seems like a good move because some allies are risk-averse to the point of being ineffective (not that MRAPs are going to save them).  By air, when a civilian helicopter was trying to resupply at Sangin, it was shot down just outside the base, killing the crew and at least one child on the ground.  Make no mistake: this is a worthy enemy.

A reader writes:

Talking about anti-Semitism is evading the issue.  The issue is the threat posed to Israel by totally selfless Muslims and leftists all over the world.  They are willing to die and to cause millions of their people to die because they believe it is just to destroy Israel.  They don't care about the Palestinians, who could have a state tomorrow if they were willing to accept Israel's right to live.  Launching rockets against Sderot was pointless.  The fact that the number of casualties was low is irrelevant.  They were launched to prevent peace and to kill Jews.  They were also launched to provoke a retaliatory attack, which would lead to more martyrs.  Israel is not facing an enemy with self-interest.

Iran hates Sunnis and Iranians scorn Arabs.  Ahmadinejad is willing to let half the Iranians get killed in a nuclear retaliation in order to do what is righteous and beautiful–destroying Israel.

Your mistake is assuming that Israel's enemies are practical.  They aren't.  Hitler wasn't practical when he drove out Germany's atomic scientists.  He wasn't practical when he diverted trains supplying his soldiers in order to use them instead to get as many remaining Jews from Budapest to Auschwitz as possible before the war was over.

Israel aided Haiti knowing perfectly well that the aid would receive no publicity and no gratitude.  Israel admits gay Palestinians knowing perfectly well that some of them will try to become suicide bombers.  Never before in history has a country facing such danger behaved with such morality.  Israel admits Darfurian refugees; Arab countries try to kill them.

Ross joins the debate between Chait and Hennessey:

If Bush thought that Medicare Part D was politically necessary (which I think it was), then he should have pushed for a smaller tax cut. If he was convinced that the tax cut needed to be the size it ended up being, then he needed to figure out another way to handle the prescription-drugs issue. If he wanted both, he needed to find somewhere else to cut spending. To govern is to choose. But when it came to the cost of their first-term domestic priorities, the Bush administration declined to make hard choices.

Another big amen from here.

David Boaz dismisses Palin's chances in 2012:

One of the standard defenses of Palin is “liberals said Reagan was dumb.” Yes, they did, even after he out-debated Bobby Kennedy in an internationally televised debate just months after he became governor. Democratic mandarin Clark Clifford, who didn’t realize that the bank he chaired was run by actual criminals, famously called Reagan an “amiable dunce.” But now that Reagan’s hand-written radio commentary scripts have been published, no one really makes this claim any more. Read Reagan in His Own Hand, read the commentaries he wrote on yellow pads while being driven from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara, and ask yourself: Could Sarah Palin do that?

Politico profiles the dysfunctional love affair between Palin and the MSM:

We know we’re part of the problem — and we’ll surely continue to run stories about Palin. But — we’re looking at you, top newspaper editors and network executives — listen to your grumbling political reporters when they try to tell you why going overboard on the Hockey Mom beat isn’t wise. Palin is no doubt a phenomenon — she's going to draw monster crowds and be an in-demand fundraiser for GOP candidates this fall. And she may overcome her weaknesses to make a run for the White House. But to cover her as the chief alternative to Obama and the presumptive frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2012 borders on dishonest. Yes, she’s good copy and yes she’s good for business. But that doesn’t mean she should be treated like a president-in-waiting.

I'll still watch her like a hawk.

A reader writes:

Remember when Palin gave her 2008 convention speech? The parade of news anchors, pundits and columnists we call the MSM declared it a home run. Then the polls came out showing that, while she had energized the base, she had actually lost ground with that speech among independents, especially women who didn’t fall for the winking and who really did not appreciate the snark. But by then the meme had already stuck: The Convention Speech Was a Great Speech.

The exact same thing is happening now. She gives an even snarkier speech, accompanied by even more accolades from the gallery. And this latest poll aside, very few in the press will notice that independents have once again been reminded of why they don’t like her.

(Chart via Think Progress)

Scott Lucas passes along unconfirmed footage. Gas attack begins at the 1:15 mark.