 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! November 13, 2006 A "Referendum on Iraq" (Part three: Cheers and Fears)By GreyhawkIf the 2006 U.S. elections were a "referendum on Iraq" - who won? "The Democrats" of course - that's an easy answer. But here we've always asked the tough questions, and the full answer to that one isn't so obvious. This is part three in a series - part one is here, part two is here. More will follow. Over the weekend the AP reported al Qaeda's response to the U.S. elections: But New York Times readers only got part of the story - if they found it on page 8 (see if you notice what's been added, and what's left out...)
That's all part of the script for al Qaeda's "Working Paper for a Media Invasion of America" - use the American media to "throw fear into the American people's hearts". There's no denying that plan is working - American media have done little to acknowledge its existence and (wittingly or not) much to help them achieve their goals. But have U.S. politicians responded to al Qaeda's latest media blitz? From President Bush's weekend radio address: And here's the Democrats response, from Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
A careful read will reveal that while the President does not definitively argue for "stay the course", Dr Dean is not arguing for "cut and run". Democrats - with an increased say in US policy, are now confronted with the very real fact that they could be perceived as architects of defeat - as opposed to the pre-election "Cassandra" position they no longer enjoy. Still, they've promised "change" - an amorphous concept that is actually a near-daily reality in Iraq, and has no significant current Republican opposition. But while U.S. politicians move slowly towards a new, improved, compromise definition of "change", al Qaeda is able to act fast in declaring victory. This fits in with another aspect of that "media invasion" - divide and conquer America. Sap the will of half the people, and the other half will not be able to confront a (seemingly) distant enemy while being obstructed on the home front. Until now that split has been defined by political party affiliation. But any upcoming "compromise" will likely have the interesting impact of alienating half of Republican voters and half of the Democrats -each for different reasons, of course, but this promises a potentially interesting variation from the pre-election partisan separation. But worse than that "new direction" might be the perception of no action whatsoever, and unless American politicians act swiftly, we have months uncertainty ahead - months that al Qaeda is prepared to use to their advantage. Here's the potential beginning of the death spiral: As Americans debate, Iraqis lose faith that Americans will stand with them long enough to secure their country. This will lead to the strengthening of regional (or in Baghdad, neighborhood) militias at the cost of the government forces - Iraqi Army and Police. American troops attached to those units will be first to see the tipping point. While not seeing the elections themselves as reason for despair, they will recognize the reality of any second- or third-order results on their mission, and the futility of their efforts. "Battles" - primarily for external support of and internal fortitude from their charges - once thought worth the effort will become increasingly hopeless, and less frequently waged. The number of empty spaces in formations will grow... None of this will be invisible to the Iraqi population - or al Qaeda, whose task will become increasingly easy. Along with their media strategy, it's worthwhile to review their "military" strategy that it complements so well. Its brutal simplicity requires very few "soldiers" to implement, and determined opposition - civil and military - to fail. (Undermining that opposition is the complimentary purpose of the media strategy, and it's working quite well.) Meanwhile, back in Washington, politicians - and other Americans - will spend precious time debating whose fault it all is. And any hope for solutions will likely be sabotaged by a press that touts al Qaeda successes and body counts without any balance - as the New York Times does above - portrays any tentative steps towards American political compromise as anything but, and immediately discounts any talk of American commitment as lacking credibility, as the LA Times does here:
A detailed recitation of the death count follows - less any victories by the good guys. Victory is the bad word. Success is unobtainable. A "war on terror" is un-winnable. Use those terms and your credibility is questionable. - it's only been a few days from the American elections, but thus far that trend in American media has not changed. A clock is ticking for Americans and Iraqis alike - fast action and concrete statements of intent from politicians is called for. Accurate reporting of progress is essential. If that seems difficult, its because it is. If that seems impossible, its because you're letting al Qaeda's strategy defeat you. Update: Opening salvos, from today's New York Times:
These are what's known as starting positions. The clock ticks... Posted by Greyhawk / November 13, 2006 7:17 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackNancy and the Left's "War on Christmas" is off to the races! It's a joke, folks. Read More 5 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Greyhawk & Co., if the movie "Obsession" is not enough to convince Americans of the threat we face, perhaps Glenn Beck's program on Wednesday night on CNN's Headline News channel will convince us. The program has been in the works since August, and will be evidence of why we cannot have "dialogue" with "them", i.e. Iran and Syria...or any of the mufsidun fighting hirabah, than we were able to have successful dialogue with North Korea during Clinton's term.
Hey, but how do you know that the text quoted in the Washington Times is the correct one? Neither the Post nor the Times bothers with citing their information.
No wonder I have to fail almost a third of my students each year for plagiarism. (And I fear the blogging world is doing its part to encourage such lazy research).
A Conservative Plan for Iraq
Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority.
This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course” and “get out now”.
Some Truths
1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they don’t have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have.
2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differences—but concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse.
3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.)
4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilians—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda—in part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools.
5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollah—that we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; it’s so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries.
6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world.
From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children.
New Directions
Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must:
1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population.
2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting.
3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights.
4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies.
Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region.
We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand.
And I am still trying to get a second source on the referral of the Kuwaiti Newspaper that gave a report on the location of 20 or so ex-Iraqi nuclear scientists that went missing turning up in Syria. Apparently with Syrian, Iranian and ex-Russian Republic scientists. Even unconfirmed that scares me quite some bit as it indicates that Iran has been playing a game of distraction while the finalization development for nuclear work has been going on in Syria.
Original report here: http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/11/nyt_article_on_.html#more
My look at it and how this would tie into Iran and Syria's plans here: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/11/some-of-digging-going-on-with-fmso.html
How you get a *second source* on that I have no idea... perhaps using commercial imagery and scouring the area at high resolution until one's eyes bug out. BTDTGTTS Not up for that, so seeking other info. But this really does need to be tracked down as Iran was part of the AQ Khan network and would have Pakistani warhead plans. Syria has connections with North Korea via the supernote trade and purchasing NoDong missiles from them. I do not like these things and the fact that Syria has not been doing much of anything with its conventional forces... so where has that money been going for years if not a decade or more? Why invest in conventional arms if you will be making a nuclear force? Especially with the Iranian Foreign Legion to help backstop you...
Too many puzzle pieces start to fit very well if this is true... and I don't like the shape of that puzzle....
Johanna,
I really hope you read your students' papers a bit more closely before grading them. The stories come from the New York Times and the AP - the AP story I linked was in the Washington Times, but there are other papers that carry it too. I always try to "source" a story to it's original source, not the paper in which it appears. Neither side is lying - but the NY Times is omitting a considerable portion of the story. (And The Post is not involved at all).
Plagiarism? What's that got to do with it?
To emphasize what I hoped was obvious - but I believe you missed - slanted media coverage of the upcoming debate on Iraq will mask that debate in the eyes of the American people. In fact (in a point I haven't gotten around to making in this series yet) as individuals shift their positions on Iraq (centrist Dems, Repubs, and Independents seek common ground while extremists and "party uber alles" types on both sides move to the fringes) I predict the media will pander to the minority - those extremists, who will make great headlines.
You'll be able to identify the extremes - one side will call for "troops home now" while on the other side "don't listen to Democrats - they want the troops home now!" will rally the faithful.
The rest of us will work to "fix" Iraq.