Les Jones

Roundup of missed predictions on the surge…

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

at Volokh.com.

The only real question about the planned “surge” in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. — Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07

There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. — NYT Editorial, 1/11/07

What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. — Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07

Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy. — Nicholas Kristof, NYT, 2/13/07

W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07

Team Finds Little Evidence of Archaeological Looting in Iraq

Monday, July 7th, 2008 | Middle East | Permalink | 1 Comment |

Archaeologists debunk claim of looting in S. Iraq war zone:

Curtis admitted he had been “very surprised” by the team’s findings and cautioned that, while the survey covered the most important sites in an area equal to one-fifth of the country, it might not be representative.

“It may not be typical of the country as a whole, and the situation could well be worse further north,” he warned. Curtis credited efforts by coalition forces and local authorities, as well as the drying up of the international market for Iraqi antiquities, with keeping looters away.

The team did identify damage to sites caused by the Iraqi military and coalition military forces. At Ubaid, trenchworks to protect Saddam’s tanks had been built in archaeologically significant deposits. Similar damage was found at Tell el-Lahm. Paper food wrappers provided evidence of the U.S. military at the latter site.

At Abraham’s Ur, significant damage was identified caused by large numbers of troops walking over the site in desert boots. And ancient buildings, reconstructed in the 1960s and 70s, were in danger of collapse from weathering. The team did not confirm Farchakh’s report that military vehicles from the U.S. base were causing the walls of the buildings to crack.

In 2003, WND reported in the aftermath of reports of looting at the National Museum in Baghdad, nearly all of the Iraqi antiquities feared stolen or broken by looters have been found inside following an inventory.

Does the New Iran NIE Change Anything?

Thursday, December 6th, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

From The Corner:

I worked as a manager for 30 years in the US nuclear weapons program and have been a consultant to places like Los Alamos for the past six years.

The NIE, if correct, still is of concern. Making nuclear weapons involves two major initiatives: designing/building the weapon and getting the nuclear material for the weapon. The NIE appears to say that the former has been (temporarily?) suspended, while the latter is proceeding. Getting the nuclear material for a uranium bomb is by far the most difficult and time consuming part of the problem. The US pursued parallel programs (uranium and plutonium) in the Manhattan Project. US physicists were so sure that the uranium bomb would work that they did not even test it before using the uranium bomb on Japan (the one we tested in southern New Mexico was the plutonium bomb). It is likely that the physics and manufacturing challenges for the Iranians are modest at best. (Many of the physics students in my grad school 40 years ago were Iranians that planned to return home.) Again, the difficult job is getting sufficient enriched uranium, and that program continues to be accelerated.

So… the NIE says that the Iranians have suspended their weaponization efforts, but in the total critical path to getting a bomb, I am not sure that it matters.

And we have reason to believe that Iran is still refining uranium based on an intelligence report not from the Bush administration but from the IAEA:

A new report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear program highlights Tehran’s cooperation with the agency. But the report makes clear that Iran continues to defy international demands for a halt to its uranium enrichment program.

So the news that Iran isn’t developing its weapon program - assuming it’s even true - doesn’t seem like that big of a deal if it’s still refining uranium.

CNN’s Six “Undecided Voters” Were Ringers

Monday, November 19th, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | 2 Comments |

Doug Ross:

CNN hits bottom and digs: All six debate questioners appear to be Democratic Party operatives. So much for “ordinary people, undecided voters”. To paraphrase Junior Soprano, CNN is so far up the DNC’s hind end, Howard Dean can taste hair gel.

In a nutshell, CNN’s six “undecided voters” were:

A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist

This is why some people’s ears perk up when they see or hear the phrase “undecided voter.”

See also:
- John Ridley - NPR’s “Undecided Voter”

89,000 Afghanistan Kids Saved This Year

Thursday, November 8th, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | 3 Comments |

USA Today - Afghan officials: Better care saves 89,000 kids this year:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Close to 90,000 children who would have died before age 5 in Afghanistan during Taliban rule will stay alive this year because of advances in medical care in the country, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Sunday.

The under-5 child mortality rate in Afghanistan has declined from an estimated 257 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 to about 191 per 1,000 in 2006, the Ministry of Public Health said, relying on a new study by Johns Hopkins University.

The U.N. and aid agency Save the Children both hailed the advances in health care in Afghanistan.

“This is certainly very positive news,” said the U.N. spokesman in Afghanistan, Adrian Edwards. “To come from such low life expectancy to see this improvement does appear to be an indication that the work on the health sector here is beginning to pay off.”

The article goes out of its way to give any credit to the U.S., devoting just one sentence (the last sentence) to the American role: “A U.S.-led invasion in 2001 toppled the Taliban militant movement from power.”

Iraq Civil War Averted, Iranian Influence Checked

Wednesday, September 26th, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

Washington Post via Confederate Yankee:

Civil war has been averted in Iraq and Iranian intervention there has “ceased to exist,” Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday.

“I can’t say there is a picture of roses and flowers in Iraq,” Maliki told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “However, I can say that the greatest victory, of which I am proud . . . is stopping the explosion of a sectarian war.” That possibility, he said, “is now far away.”

While political reconciliation is not yet complete, he said, progress is being made. “Reconciliation is not a decision that can be made, but a process that takes continuous efforts and also needs strategic patience,” Maliki said.

Muqtada Al-Sadr Calls Off Violence in Iraq

Wednesday, September 5th, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

I’m late in linking to this:

BAGHDAD - The powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr publicly ordered his huge militia Wednesday to “freeze” operations for up to six months.

But U.S. and Iraqi officials expressed skepticism of the fiery, anti-American cleric’s intentions and his ability to control the fractured network of fighters who kill in his name.

Al-Sadr issued his order following a day of Shiite-against-Shiite gunfire that killed 49 people during a religious ceremony in the holy city of Karbala. In a statement, he said the freeze would apply to his Mahdi Army militia “without exception in order to have it restructured in a way that would retain for this ideological body its prestige.”

It’s hard not to see this as a turning point and evidence of the success of General Patreus’s surge.

Positive NY Times Op-Ed on the Surge

Tuesday, July 31st, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | 4 Comments |

NY Times Op-ed by Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings:

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

ABC: “Document: Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban”

Thursday, June 7th, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

From ABC’s newsblog:

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran’s proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

“It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that’s doing it,” said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence “of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban.”

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran’s involvement.

Iran gave arms to Hezbollah during last year’s proxy war with Isreal. Now it’s been caught giving arms to the Taliban. If Iran gets nuclear weapons there’s no reason to believe they won’t give them to terrorists.

Scott Adams Re-thinks the War on Terror/Al Qaeda

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | 1 Comment |

He’s now in favor of it:

One of the problems is that there is a complete disconnect between reality and what terrorists believe. They think God gave them specific real estate, that a horse can fly, there are virgins waiting for them in heaven, and Jews orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. There’s no reason to believe that reality intrudes on their decisions. Tweaking reality would be a waste of time.

This leads me to Israel. I used to think Israel was making a mistake to occupy disputed land and give their enemies more reasons to attack and fewer reasons to make peace. Again, perhaps if we had a time machine there was a period in history where that was true. But we’re long past that. Now I believe there is sufficient perpetual hatred against Israel that it would be irrational for them to offer any concessions. It makes more sense to grab as much land and water as they can get their hands on. And it makes sense to keep the Palestinians in a permanent state of wretchedness and powerlessness as Israel consolidates its hold on those resources. In five hundred years, they’ll be glad they have more land and water.

While I think Israel’s policies are a dark grey form of evil, I support them because at this point they are being entirely rational. It would be hypocritical to deny any other nation the right to pursue their self-interest.

Is the Troop Surge for Iraq, or Iran?

Friday, January 26th, 2007 | Middle East | Permalink | 6 Comments |

I’m starting to wonder if everything is as it appears with the calls for increased troops in Iraq. Ahmadinejad keeps making fierce noises about Iran’s nuclear program. It’s possible the extra troops are a chess move to intimidate him into concessions on Iran’s nuclear program, or at least to be less of a loudmouth. It’s easy to know what’s said at press conferences and in press releases. It’s harder to know what’s happening behind the scenes.

Hoder on a Nuclear Iran

Friday, September 22nd, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

I met Hossein Derakshan (”Hoder”) last year at BlogNashville and covered his talk there. Hoder is an Iranian expat and critic of the current Iranian regime. He currently lives in Canada.

This week he wrote a Washington Post op-ed titled “Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons.”

Hoder fled his native country because of the abuse of power there. He’s spoken out against the Iranian mullah’s manipulation of elections (such as wiping dozens of opposition party candidates off the ballot). He’s fearful of going back because the government may arrest him for his criticism.

Yet he wants that same government to have nuclear weapons. What’s wrong with this picture?

This is the same Iranian government that openly gave conventional arms to Hezbollah a few months ago to wage a proxy war with Israel. Why should we believe they wouldn’t do the same with nuclear weapons?

Conversation in a Food City Checkout Line

Saturday, September 9th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

JAY: Do you have your Food City card?
ME: I think. Maybe on my keychain.
JAY: Here. You can use mine.
ME: I’m using your Food City card? Cool. In that case I want five enema bottles, a gross of Kotex, and a dozen Trojans size extra-small.
JAY: Why don’t you go ahead and get some of that cold medicine they keep behind the counter?
ME: (to the cashier) I’ll take a hundred dollars worth of whatever I need to make crystal meth. Put it on his card.

See also:
- Buying Condoms
- Conversation in the Living Room
- Conversation in a Kroger’s Checkout Line
- Conversation at a Urinal (Rated R)

How War, Guerilla Warfare, and Terrorism Work

Wednesday, August 30th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

Steven den Beste explains all.

Industrial war can be summed up this way: God fights on the side which has the biggest pile of ammunition and the fastest rate of replacement of expended ammunition. Like any general principle it’s not absolutely unconditionally true, but that’s the norm.

In response, two new strategic doctrines of war were developed to make it possible for small logistically-poor forces to contend against large logistically-rich forces without getting instantly crushed: guerrilla warfare and terrorist warfare. Both of them seek to nullify the logistical advantage of their richer opponents by maintaining initiative, so as to control the tempo of the war at a level low enough to not exhaust the logistics of the poorer side. For the rest of this discussion I’ll be concentrating on guerrillas.

Guerrillas hide among civilians, and only come out and form up when they choose to fight. The rest of the time they’re invisible, which makes it impossible for their rich opponent to find them.

It’s possible for guerrillas to win directly, but the doctrine doesn’t assume that to be the only way victory can be achieved. The idea is to try to fight a long slow war and to build strength. Guerrillas try to maintain a force-in-being, and concentrate heavily on propaganda. By so doing they try to wear out their opponent, try to rally supporters, and try to find patrons elsewhere to support the fight. When handled ideally all these begin slow but increase in effectiveness as time goes on. As their strength builds, they can make more attacks, and get more headlines. The other side’s war weariness grows. Patrons see the guerrillas winning and are more enthusiastic about providing more and better weapons and supplies to help them. Locals see them winning and are more likely to join or otherwise support them.

Anyone recognize Hezbollah in what I just wrote? That’s what they’ve been trying to do in Lebanon.

Syrian Missiles Being Fired at Israel

Tuesday, August 15th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

From the UK Telegraph:

Abandoned Hizbollah positions in Lebanon yesterday revealed conclusive evidence that Syria - and almost certainly Iran - provided the anti-tank missiles that have blunted the power of Israel’s once invincible armour.

Israel TV Station: Iranian Soldiers Found Among Hizbollah

Friday, August 11th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

Reuters:

Members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard have been found among Hizbollah guerrillas slain by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, Israel’s Channel 10 television reported on Wednesday citing diplomatic sources.

It said the Iranians were identified by documents found on their bodies, but gave no further details on how many were discovered or when. Neither the Israeli military nor Hizbollah representatives in Beirut had immediate comment on the report.

I’d like to see confirmation from a non-Israeli source. (Israel is engaged to some degree in a progaganda war, even if it is somewhat less cynical and shameless than Hezbollah’s propaganda war.) If it is true the story doesn’t surprise me.

See also:
- I Just Realized We’re in a Proxy War with Iran and Syria

I Just Realized We’re in a Proxy War with Iran and Syria

Tuesday, August 8th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | 1 Comment |

So this war in Iraq. This confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. I just realized we’re in a proxy war with Iran. And Syria, to a lesser degree.

Iran and Syria have armed Hezbollah with some 14,000 rockets. A Hezbollah soldier tells Reuters he trained in Iran and arrived there on a flight from Syria. It’s long been said that Iran was supplying and manning the Iraq resistance.

So we’re in a proxy war with Iran and probably Syria. It’s worth remembering that as news comes out of the Middle East.

Iraq Oil Production Highest Since War Began

Friday, June 30th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

Production now at 2.5 million barrels per day.

Not to Alarm Anyone, But

Thursday, June 29th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | 2 Comments |

Have you noticed that war has broken out between Israel and Hamas over the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier? Lots more today at Drudge. Now that the Palestinians have a government, it looks like Israel is showing them the consequences for a government committing acts of terrorism. It turns out governments are easier to punish than terrorist groups.

French Support for Palestinians Waning

Friday, June 9th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | 1 Comment |

From The Jerusalem Post:

Three years ago, 60 percent of French respondents said they took a side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and of that 60%, four out of five backed the Palestinians. Today, by contrast, 60% of French respondents did not take a side in the conflict, and support for the Palestinians had dropped by half among those who did express a preference.

At the root of the change, said Greenberg, was a fundamental remaking in Europe of the “framework” through which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed. Three years ago, he said, the conflict was perceived “in a post-colonial framework.”

There was a sense “that Europe could cancel out its own colonial history by taking the ‘right’ side” - the Palestinian side. Yasser Arafat was viewed as “an anti-colonial, liberation leader.” The US was seen as a global imperial power, added Greenberg, and the fact that it was backing Israel only added to the “instinctive” sense of the Palestinians as victims.

Today, by contrast, the Europeans “are focused on fundamentalist Islam and its impact on them,” he said. The Europeans were now asking themselves “who is the moderate in this conflict, and who is the extremist? And suddenly it is the Palestinians who may be the extremists, or who are allied with extremists who threaten Europe’s own society.” An increasing proportion of Europeans are concluding that “maybe the Palestinians are not the colonialist victims” after all.

Bush Offers Nuke Plant to Iran

Friday, June 9th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | 1 Comment |

The Bull Moose on Bush offering a nuclear power plant to Iran if they shut down their uranium enrichment program:

Well, there you have it. After years of conservative claims that the Clinton Administration sold out to the North Koreans with the deal that gave them a nuclear reactor, the Bushies have largely replicated that bargain for the Iranians. Peace in our time!

Let us put this in perspective. If a Kerry Administration had offered this deal, there would be the equivalent of conservative rioting in the streets. An impeachment resolution would be offered. The theme of the day on talk radio would be the betrayal of America.

I’m pretty sure the Bullmoose is correct - conservatives would call this appeasement if a Democrat did it. What’s more, the mini-UN or whatever it was called tried this tactic months ago and Iran rejected their proposal. I can’t imagine what BushCo is thinking.

Prospect: Two Out of Three Teams Said Trailers Were for WMDs

Friday, April 14th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | No Comments |

The other day the Washington Post story quoted a supposedly unequivocal report from one team. Now the Spectator says that two of the three inspection teams thought the trailers were mobile WMD labs, and the third team was in fact split, as the NY Times reported in 2003.

Curiously, on June 7, 2003, the New York Times had already described three teams looking over the trailers in Iraq. Two of the teams were in agreement that the trailers were WMD labs, but the third, more senior team was not at all “unequivocal,” but “divided sharply over the functions of the trailers.” Given that the dissenting experts with “direct access to the evidence” whom the Times quotes were both British and American experts, and the Post also describes the secret team as being made up of “nine civilian U.S. and British experts,” the Post’s scoop on the “secret” third team is looking less, well, scoopy, and more like a rehash of information mostly in the public domain for nearly three years. (See also George Gooding at Seixon.com, who got the scoop on the Post’s non-scoop.)

Press fight!

The Religion of Peace That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Tuesday, March 14th, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | 4 Comments |

Mark Steyn looks at P.C. media self-censorship in the Chapel Hill terrorist attack.

A fellow called Mohammed mows down a bunch of students? Just one of those things — like a gran’ma in my neck of the woods a couple of years back who hit the wrong pedal in the parking lot and ploughed through a McDonald’s, leaving the place a hideous tangle of crumbled drywall, splattered patties and incendiary hot apple-pie filling. Yet, according to his own statements, Taheri-azar committed an act of ideological domestic terrorism, which he’d planned for two months. He told police he was more disappointed more students in his path weren’t struck and that he’d rented the biggest vehicle the agency had in order to do as much damage to as many people as possible. The Persian car pet may have been flooring it, but the media are idling in neutral, if not actively reversing away from the story as fast as they can. Taheri-azar informed the judge he was “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah,” and it was apparently the will of Allah that he get behind the wheel of Allah.

It is odd that the media is downplaying the Islamic terror angle that’s very clearly the rationale behind the attacks. I’ve seen commentators justify it by saying that the media doesn’t want to inflame the situation because they don’t want to risk a violent backlash against Muslims. It’s the same rationale for not showing tapes of the 9/11 attacks. Of course, that backlash hasn’t happened in any meaningful way in the past, despite media handwringing over same. So now we’re in the situation of the media hiding information about an actually violent Muslim terrorist so that we supposedly violent Americans don’t strike back. This seems to be nothing other than reverse (and flawed) P.C. profiling of Americans as ignorant, violent hoodlums.

About those Danish Cartoons

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 | Middle East | Permalink | 1 Comment |

I haven’t said much about them because I’m not doing a lot of political blogging lately. The riots in response to the Danish cartoons help put the world of radicalized Islam in sharper relief. It’s become increasingly obvious that Islamic terrorist groups and the Arab street aren’t just violent towards Israel or the United States; they’re violent towards anyone that undermines their fundamentalist thinking. People whose comfrotable worldview allowed them to cluck their tongues at Israel and the U.S. are finding it harder to feel comfortable in the wake of the East Timor bombings, the London bombings, the Madrid bombings, the Turkish mosque attacks, the French riots, and the current riots inspired by Dutch cartoons.

I am completely amazed at the American and other media outlets that have backed down from showing the cartoons. They’ve completely forfeited their journalistic integrity by censoring themselves in the name of political correctness. The next time there’s a piece of art along the lines of “Piss Christ” that offends Christians they’re going to have ensorcell some fancy rationalizations for why they’re being less sensitive to Christians than to Muslims. As it is, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a double standard.

Tim Blair:

In 1997, columnist Jill Singer argues for the display of Piss Christ: “We … need to understand the value of artistic freedom.”

In 2006, columnist Jill Singer argues against the display of Prophet toons: “Who wants a totally uncensored media run by those devoid of judgment, taste or social responsibility?”

Jim Treacher:

At the risk of being a bit vulgar, what a huge motherfucking crock of camel shit. “We felt the images… would not hinder our readers from making an informed opinion”? First of all, you mean you thought not publishing the images wouldn’t hinder the readers from making an informed opinion.

More Tim Blair:

Journalists can spend entire careers mouthing off about their commitment to free speech without ever having the chance to properly demonstrate it. I once had a theory that the lack of repression in modern democracies drove journalists to invent McCathyesque threats, so much did they crave an opportunity to stare down those who would silence them. Their ideal imagined foes (I’m guessing): brutish religious fundamentalists opposed to progressive notions on women’s rights, homosexuality, art, and education.

Problem is, those imagined foes were always named Falwell or Robertson or Nile (or John Paul II). Faced with fundamentalist religious demands from people bearing less familiar titles, however, the media froze. Missed your chance, journalists!

And one last Tim Blair, contrasting the reluctance of media outlets to show the Danish cartoons with their lack of reluctance or soul-searching in showing new Abu Ghraib photos.

Note again the willingness of the media to excite Muslim anger in cases where none of that anger might be directed towards the media.

Murtha Encouraged Clinton’s 1993 Withdraw from Somalia

Friday, December 2nd, 2005 | Middle East | Permalink | 2 Comments |

Murtha is portrayed in press releases as a Democratic hawk. For a hawk, he sure is in favor of retreating at the earliest possible date. It turns out he encouraged Clinton to withdraw from Somalia. That, in turn, emboldened Al Qaeda, as Osama bin Laden explained:

“But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the ‘heart’ of every Muslim and a remedy to the ‘chests’ of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.”

If you’ve read Black Hawk Down the Somali warlords were battered and out of RPGs by the end of that fateful day. Withdrawing was not strategically necessary. It was just a political calculation. Clinton wasn’t the only one. Reagan and Bush, Sr. (as the link makes clear) were quick to cut their losses in Beirut and elsewhere. The sum total of those decisions was to teach terrorists that if they attacked the U.S. that we’d run.

After 9/11 Bush the younger was willing to take the defeats with the victories to prove that the U.S. won’t be run out of town by terrorists and warlords to appease the tyranny of short-term polls of U.S voters.

It’s a long, hard slog militarily and politically, but this is a fight we have to win. The bin Laden quote above proves Donald Rumsfeld’s dictum: weakness is a provocation. If they think you’ll run if attacked, they’re more likely to attack you. Via AlphaPatriot.