The Rule Of Law In Anbar Province

Michael Yon reports.

Treason

How many more times will the media print "sensitive" national security information from ANONYMOUS "patriots," while no one suffers any consequences for the breach, except the people who will die because U.S. government secrets were blabbed to the world--because Americans have a "right to know?" ABC has given the Iranians another excuse to play the victim, while continuing defiantly to develop the nuclear capabilities that the oil rich nation claims to need for power. (They want power, all right, just not the kind that runs the refrigerator.) Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, on The Blotter at ABCNews.com print the big, bold headline "Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran." Not covert anymore:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions…

What part of secret does ABC not get? Okay, now no one is going to be shocked that the U.S. is working against the regime in Iran. The U.S. darned well better be doing something to hinder an antagonistic bully that is very visibly and vocally working toward becoming a nuclear power, has made decisive threats against its neighbors--our allies--while actively supporting terrorism, is one of the major destabilizing factors in Iraq, would love nothing more than to put a giant nuclear hole where Israel used to be, and chortles in delight at the mere thought of leaving New York, LA, London or even Paris a smoking radioactive crater. It's not a big surprise to learn that our government takes this threat seriously. However, if ABC News doesn't think that Ahmadinejad and his cohorts will use this "revelation" for all it's worth in the blame department, then they are worse than idiots. Muslim extremists riot over CARTOONS, for pity's sake.

Iran's power mongers will milk this down to the last drop in the Muslim world, and will make mental inroads with many, even in the other Muslim countries that would much rather not have a nuclear Iran in the region. This will be taken as further evidence that America is evil, what with having the desire to destabilize the Iranian government and all. Imperialist swine. Never mind the fact that the rest of the world would be insane not to work toward the downfall of a fanatical, power mad, oppressive regime that is very clear about its intentions to rule the world and kill everyone who stands to prevent that. This will be played as interference from the Great Satan in Muslim affairs, and it won't matter a bit that Iranians interfere with the affairs of the rest of the region constantly--Lebanon and Iraq being two of the countries that bear a lot of the brunt of Iran's attention. How many more Muslims will die in Iraq because another handful of suicide bombers were recruited to fight against the evil Iran-destabilizing USA? How many more times will the American media print "sensitive" information and get away with it? ABC News should be prosecuted for its own "black ops", along with the anonymous CIA sources. The only way these people are going to stop working against America is if they are held accountable for it.

Hat tip: Allah Pundit at Hot Air, who has more to say on the appeasement approach to the situation with Iran, and a look at some of the possibilities for "blowback" from Iran.

The Power Of The Pen

A fourth province in Iraq has now been handed over to the Iraqis. Michael Yon looks at media coverage of the event.

Positive Changes In Iraq

Another Sunni tribe turns against al Qaeda:

The Albu Fahd was one of the six original Anbari tribes to support al Qaeda and its Islamic State in Iraq. These six tribes are known in some military intelligence circles as the "Sinister Six". The Albu Fahd [described as the Bu-Fahed] has now joined the Anbar Salvation Council and pledged to throw its weight behind the fight against al Qaeda.

Here's the scoop.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Yon's Latest

Michael Yon has photos from Iraq. Here's Part I. Here's Part II. Read the captions. The first dispatch looks at the 1-4 Cavalry from Fort Riley, Kansas, setting up a command outpost in a mostly abandoned neighborhood in Baghdad. In the second, you'll see signs of this Iraqi neighborhood coming back to life. As usual, Yon writes what he sees, and his photos let you see it for yourself.

Update: Austin Bay has an audio interview with Michael Yon at Pajamas Media's Blog Week in Review. It's very interesting.

Iraqi "Neighborhood Watch"

I'm not taking much time to write today, but I wanted to share this post from JD Johannes, writing from the Al Anbar province in Iraq, at Outside The Wire. He's got some encouraging local developments for those Americans who fear/believe we've already lost the war in Iraq. To the contrary, judging from the evidence in Al Anbar (one of the major insurgent strongholds of the last few years), Johannes says that it may be we've already won--but just don't realize it. The tribes and local Sheikhs have "flipped," and this place that used to be a haven for insurgent forces has become a home to neighborhood watches and volunteer check points--all working against the insurgency. Have a look.

Update: General Petraeus, the man now in charge of our forces in Iraq, spoke with Congress Wednesday (closed door, because of classified information) about how the surge is going thus far, and later gave a public briefing, minus the classified, closed-door stuff. He seems to share Johannes' encouragement about Al Anbar and what a difference the allegiance of the local sheikhs and tribesmen is making in the fight against Al Qaeda. He also spoke frankly of the challenges both the Coalition and the Iraqis are facing, and where he sees signs of progress. The Mudville Gazette has excerpts from the public briefing as well as the Democratic and Republican assessments of what they learned from the General. It's really interesting how two groups of people can hear the same words and draw vastly different conclusions. Fortunately, thanks to our friend the Internet, you can read the excerpts for yourself and draw your own.

Hat tip: Instapundit for the Mudville Gazette link.

The Numbers Explained

Here's something interesting. Frederick W. Kagan, one of the authors of the plan given to the Bush administration by the American Enterprise Institute's Iraq Planning Group (IPG), which recently led to President Bush's announcement that he will be sending 21,500 more troops into Iraq to pacify Baghdad, writes at The Weekly Standard about the discrepancies between the IPG's proposed troop numbers and those set by the President. He explains, briefly, how the IPG, composed of "a team of military planning and regional experts," came to the conclusions it did, and what the differences are between their plan and the one currently going forward. Bottom line: The IPG advised more troops than the President has decided to deploy, on the order of twice as many, to completely "clear and hold all of Baghdad."

I don't know what led to the lower numbers coming from the White House, whether from a solid belief that the numbers they settled on would be enough, or a belief that the American political classes and public would start a protest stampede if the number was too high, or perhaps, as some have claimed, because we don't have enough troops in our military as a whole to sustain an additional 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. However, Kagan doesn't make the President's decisions seem calamitous by any measure. Kagan has some criticisms of certain aspects of the way the troop deployments are going forward, and of the amount of leadership being asked of the Iraqis, but his explanation of the Bush Administration's current plans, in comparison with the IPG's proposal, make it clear that the two plans aren't as far removed from each other as the numbers would indicate.

What I found interesting about the article was the glimpse into how all those military types make decisions about what troop deployments will be necessary to accomplish a given goal. The glimpse is very glimpsy--certainly not a detailed description of military strategy, but I still found it informative. Those experienced military decision-makers seem to have a very clear understanding about what a given number of soldiers, in a given range of time and space, can accomplish. Clearly, conditions on the ground change, and can affect outcomes, but the discussion from Kagan, while addressing troop numbers, was also focused on numbers of brigades. They are thinking in chunks of capabilities and accomplishment, which reminded me that, while individual soldiers are the core of what the military can accomplish, how they are used as a whole will really determine the effectiveness of their missions. Each individual soldier may very well be brilliant and capable (and I happen to believe that our American soldiers are the best the world has ever seen), but if they are put to the wrong tasks, or in the wrong places, they will be fighting a much harder battle because of the misuse of their abilities.

I believe Iraq is winnable, and what our soldiers are doing there is crucial to the future stability of the region and the world, and I hope (along with the saner elements in America, who aren't rooting for the plan to fail so that Bush will fail and prove them right) that our leaders will use them well. I've said before that I think this surge is the right thing to do. We cannot leave Iraq to the fate of Vietnam, and we cannot leave our own reputation in the world, and future security, in the hands of militia leaders like Moqtada al Sadr and eschatologically-driven regimes like Iran, who would declare victory and impose their particular brand of Islam on the people of Iraq before the last U.S. soldier had slunk out the back door, or at the very least start "the mother of all civil wars." These troop deployments are important, as are the decisions being made as to how to use them. I pray that God will give our leaders wisdom. He's already given us an incredibly capable military force.

The Numbers Game

Dean Barnett has a breakdown of what the troop surge in Iraq, which President Bush announced last night, really means on the ground, and offers some opinions as to why many of the voices in Congress and punditry are dismissing the efficacy of the change. It is funny to watch so many Senators and Congressmen who, when Bush was sticking with the force numbers already on the ground, were calling for an increase in troop strength, and criticising the President for not boosting the numbers (or pulling out altogether, which is what they really want), but now are singing a different tune and saying that a rise in troop levels won't do any good. Some of them are just going to oppose the President no matter what. It's their stock in trade. As for the rest, Barnett puts it down to ignorance of what the addition of 20,000 troops, all focused on security in Baghdad and training Iraqis, actually means in terms of capability. Ground that has been previously cleared of militias and terrorists, but then ceded back to the enemy, will now be cleared again, but this time held, with the aid of the increased forces. He explains it all pretty well. Have a look.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Iraq Developments

Dean Barnett has an interesting analysis of the Sunni/Shia divide in Iraq--well, realistically, in Islam, and what the questionable actions of Saddam's executioners (when the tyrant went to meet his maker) show about the general state of the Islamic world:

...if you think the facts that Saddam’s executioners taunted him, behaved in an uncivilized manner and chanted the name “Moqtada” aren’t matters of concern for us, you’re deluding yourself. As the Allahpundit put it both eloquently and bluntly, “Why does this matter? Because it’s typical of these morons that even at a moment of supreme justice, they’d find some way to infect it with savagery.”

He's got his finger on the pulse of the conflict, but also has an eye for a more positive outcome in Iraq than many are expecting currently, and a realization that many Muslims in Iraq do, in fact, want peace. He reveals some promising new developments, as Iraqi government and Coalition forces are apparently now working to stamp out Moqtada al Sadr's militias. That could go a long way toward limiting some of the barbaric sectarian violence coming out of "the cradle of civilization." Have a look. It's worth the time.

HT: Instapundit

Planning For Victory

Here's a news flash that will be encouraging to those of us who still believe that victory is possible in Iraq--So does President Bush. Fred Barnes, of The Weekly Standard, reports on the President's response to the recommendations of The Iraq Study Group:

It turns out you only have to attend a White House Christmas party to find out where President Bush is headed on Iraq. One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win." Another guest informed Bush he'd given some advice to the Iraq Study Group, and said its report should be ignored. The president chuckled and said he'd made his position clear when he appeared with British prime minister Tony Blair. The report had never mentioned the possibility of American victory. Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo-op with Blair, is "victory."

Now Bush is ready to gamble his presidency on a last-ditch effort to defeat the Sunni insurgency and establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq. He is prepared to defy the weary wisdom of Washington that it's too late, that the war in Iraq is lost, and that Bush's lone option is to retreat from Iraq as gracefully and with as little loss of face as possible. Bush only needed what his press secretary, Tony Snow, called a "plan for winning." Now he has one.

Barnes has what looks to be the inside scoop on what that plan for winning entails. I'm no foreign policy or military expert, but the approach Barnes suggests the administration is going to take seems reasonable and consistent with Bush's goals to me. It centers around increasing security and U.S. troop strength (by 50,000 troops) in strategic places, especially Baghdad, to limit violence and protect those who are cooperating with the Iraqi government. This has the potential of leading to more political cooperation, from people who right now are relying on sectarian violence to give them control over the country's future, when they find that alternate routes--the violent ones--are denied them. It would also enable those who are currently uncooperative out of fear of insurgent reprisals, rather than personal insurgent ambitions, to cast their lot with those who seek a peaceful and democratic Iraq.

The ISG report suggests removing many American soldiers from security duty, tasking them with training Iraqis instead, looking ultimately for a "graceful withdrawal", rather than a victory, but this approach fails to acknowledge what the fallout would be of handing things over to the Iraqis before real security is established. A violent and unstable situation would degrade even further, and people who are at this point refraining from entering into the fray would have almost no choice but to pick a faction and add to the violence to protect themselves. While training Iraqi security forces to take over their own security is the ultimate and ongoing goal, they simply are not ready for Coalition forces to dial down their security efforts. Barnes says the President's tack will be to continue the training efforts, while upping security personnel, clamping down on the instability that is hindering the political process. He says the new plan was "authored by Keane and military expert Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute":

It is based on the idea--all but indisputable at this point--that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established, starting in Baghdad. The reverse--a bid to forge reconciliation between majority Shia and minority Sunni--is a nonstarter in a political environment drenched in the blood of sectarian killings.

All of this doesn't seem that different from the goals, and on-the-ground realities, the President has had all along, but the addition of troops to accomplish these goals is where the plan takes a turn. The "new" approach steps up in large measure the level of U.S. activity to bring order to the chaos in Baghdad. Now one of the main questions is how Congress will react to the concept of increasing security in Iraq through temporarily increasing U.S. troop numbers, until the ever-expanding Iraqi police and military are fully trained and ready. It's uncertain how Congress will respond, since for a while now the focus of many, especially on the left, has been on withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible, without actually getting our tails slammed in the door of world opinion on the way out. Actually winning the war hasn't even seemed possible from the perspective of many politicians and pundits, for a long time. It is a key issue whether enough of them can be brought around to see the possibility of victory to support the President in actually increasing, rather than decreasing the troops. Barnes explains that some degree of cooperation from the new Congress is one of the President's concerns:

Before Bush announces his "new way forward" in Iraq in early January, he wants to be assured of two things. The first is that his plan can succeed. Initial evaluations of the Keane-Kagan plan at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the government have been positive. Alone among proposals for Iraq, the new Keane-Kagan strategy has a chance to succeed. Bush's second concern is to avert an explosion of opposition on Capitol Hill. Because this plan offers a credible prospect of winning in Iraq, moderate Democrats and queasy Republicans, the White House thinks, will be inclined to stand back and let Bush give it a shot.

What I would love to see is a few politicians setting aside their political (especially presidential) aspirations for long enough to think about what is best for the countries--ours and Iraq. Even other countries in the region (of which probably only Iran and Syria really want to see the insurgency continue) would benefit from the continued transformation of Iraq into a stable, democratic nation. Surely, if the loyal opposition here in the U.S. take off their "Bush is the enemy" hats for even a brief period, they can see that a victory in Iraq, even at a potentially higher cost, is still much to be preferred to a loss that leaves our credibility in tatters, and Iraq in ruins. (I tend to think that the costs would actually go down if we can really get control of the situation, but that's another post.) No matter whether they agreed with our entry into this war, it still must be possible for them to see a chance for honorable victory and support it, without sacrificing their principles and belief that we should never have gone there in the first place. Of course, the President hasn't actually presented this plan yet, but if Barnes is right, that day is coming, and I hope the Congressional response is supportive. It's what's best for Iraq. It's what's best for America, and if it happens to be what's best for the Bush administration too, well, then his opponents can comfort themselves with the realities of presidential term limits. This isn't about Bush. It's about doing what's right, and Congress and the media should get behind him on this one.

Update: Here's a somewhat different view.

Iraq News

There's a very interesting, really long, and rather encouraging update of the situation in Ramadi, by Michael Fumento, at The Weekly Standard. Fumento reports from his embed with the 1st Brigade Combat Team in Ramadi, where he arrived in October, returning to the region after half a year away. He had previously visited both Ramadi and Fallujah--this is his third embed in the Anbar Province--and wanted to see what changes had occurred since he last saw the city of 400,000. Ramadi has been an enemy stronghold in Iraq for a long time, more so since the insurgents lost nearby Fallujah. It's a highly contentious and dangerous part of Iraq. However, Fumento outlines the real progress that is being made to root out terrorists and insurgents as both the Iraqi security forces and the Coalition are receiving ever increasing cooperation from the local Sunni tribes. The Weekly Standard article will take some time to read, but in keeping with this week's theme of Thanksgiving, I offer it to you as something for which to be thankful. Excerpt:

...Ramadi is both a litmus test for the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq and a laboratory. If we can defeat the insurgent and terrorist forces here, there is no place we cannot defeat them. And from what I found, we are defeating them. It's painfully slow, and our men there are still dying in inordinate numbers from a broad variety of attacks. But a multitude of factors, including tribal cooperation, the continual introduction of more Iraqi army and police, the beginning of public works projects, the building of more Forward Operating Bases (FOBs), the installation of more small operational posts (OPs), and plunking down company-sized Combat Operation Posts (COPs) smack in the middle of hostile territory are destroying both the size and the mobility of the enemy. This time the rats are dying in place.

It's clear from reading Fumento's piece that he is putting himself in substantial danger to bring us this report. What he's writing is not coming out of the relative safety of the green zone in Baghdad. It's eyewitness news, news that says we are winning in Ramadi. Read it if you have the time.

Update: (via Instapundit) More on progress in Ramadi, from Bill Roggio, who examines the growing support among the tribal leaders of Anbar for Iraqi and U.S. efforts to oust the terrorists:

The turning of the Sunni tribes is directly related to al-Qaeda in Iraq's attempts to install a Taliban like rule in the region. Al-Qaeda looks upon the tribal system with open contempt, and has killed, intimidated and humiliated tribal leaders during the past three years under the leadership of the slain Zarqawi.

This coincides with what Fumento wrote for The Weekly Standard. The Roggio post's not so long, but fills out Fumento's story a bit more. Worth a read.

Iraqi Ideas

Instapundit pointed me to this post at National Review Online's The Corner. On Sunday, Mario Loyola linked to a couple of interviews with Iraqi bigwigs, and he commented on some points that Prime Minister Maliki made to John Simpson of the BBC:

The encouraging thing here is how convincingly Maliki talks about imposing "the authority of the state," and he shows a pretty nuanced view of the danger the militias pose outside state control, and the role they can play if properly regulated. He also makes a point I had never thought of, which is that the United States and the Coalition have an obligation under Security Council resolutions to maintain security in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can take over. And by the way, he has every intention of seeing Saddam hang before the end of the year.

Like Loyola, I had never thought about the fact that UN Security Council resolutions obligate the Coalition to stay in Iraq until Iraqis are ready to manage their own security. That is really quite encouraging, since my biggest concern with the results of the election last Tuesday has been that we not abandon Iraqis and their new government to the tender mercies of the terrorists, the militias, or the Iranians. The Iraqi government is clearly interested in its own stability, and would not express the need for a continued Coalition presence if the removal of foreign troops would aid in their struggle to unite the rival elements of Iraqi society. In other words, considering how much Iraqi citizens really don't like the occupation, the government wouldn't ask for help if they didn't need it. If it becomes clear to Democrats, leadership and average Joe alike, that we are staying because the Iraqi government really does want us there, there may be less of a conflict here at home--less impetus to set a withdrawal date. Despite what some Democratic lawmakers are saying now that they will control Congress in the new year, I really am not so despairing of reasonableness in the Democratic leadership that I think that direct appeals from the Iraqi government for us to stay will fall on unyieldingly deaf ears. Too much of an optimist to buy the "all is lost" line.

Also via Instapundit, Josh Manchester, at TCS Daily, has a solid suggestion for how the White House can encourage a serious approach on the part of the new Congressional leadership toward national security:

A charm offensive is not quite what is necessary. Instead, perhaps a combination of sobering events that will impress upon Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the gravity of our current situation would do the trick. Why not invite both Pelosi and Reid to the White House every morning until the new Congress is sworn in - and ask them to listen with the President to his Presidential Daily Brief, describing what Al Qaeda has cooked up of late? Or, why not invite them along with the President to one of his private sessions with the families of those who have paid the ultimate price overseas? Speaking of those overseas whose lives hang upon American policy, Pelosi and Reid could be participants in the next conference call that Bush has with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.

The point of all of this would be to create a true bipartisan consensus on Iraq that does not leave the Iraqis and US credibility to disaster.

Interesting, and worthwhile recommendation, eh? One of the reason the President has been so focused on the prosecution of the WoT is, no doubt, these daily reminders of the dangers our country faces. Perhaps if Pelosi and Reid can get some of the non-stop exposure to reality that the President experiences, they will find their way nearer to establishing that "true bipartisan consensus on Iraq" that Manchester advocates. Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit himself, writes of Manchester's ideas, "He also offers some excellent advice for President Bush. I hope that someone in the White House reads it." For what it's worth, I concur.

Update: Let me clarify that I know that there are people expressing concerns that the Iraqi government is "too dependant" and will never take over their own security until we make them--by leaving. I find this argument unconvincing. Considering that the Coalition occupation of Iraq is hardly popular among Iraqis, I don't think we need to fear that the Iraqi government wants to keep us around indefinitely, because it somehow makes things easy for them. The notion that the the Iraqi leadership is just shirking responsibility, and won't take it on till they're forced to, like some irresponsible teenager, when they have come so far in establishing themselves as a legitimate government, and have put enormous effort into trying to work out the differences between ethnic and religious factions, is a a very big stretch to credibility. They're facing huge obstacles, and the help they need to maintain security and train a reliable and professional security force of their own is entirely reasonable. To pull out because we want to force the Iraqis to grow faster than they are able is foolhardy, and an invitation for disaster.

Laughter And WMD

I haven't read much over the last couple of days. Occasionally, I get hijacked by life, and simply don't have the time. This weekend, it's been partly that, and partly that I just haven't taken the time. Yesterday was one of those wonderful, rare days, where it's raining, but quite warm outside, so after attending the first Christmas choir practice of the season, my husband and I went for a lovely, long walk in a bath-water downpour. Well, okay, since Ked is sure to object to the bath-water description (he thinks it's cold at about fifteen degrees higher than I do), let's just say it was warm enough for us to stay cheerful while tramping about in a very blustery and wet storm. By the time we got home, we were completely drenched, and we loved every minute of it.

Believe it or not, we are corny enough that we actually spent a good deal of the splashy adventure holding hands and singing that old Neil Sedaka tune, "Laughter in the Rain." Remember that one? Here's a bit of the lyrics, so you'll know how appropriate it was:

Strolling along country roads with my baby
It starts to rain, it begins to pour
Without an umbrella we're soaked to the skin
I feel a shiver run up my spine
I feel the warmth of her hand in mine

Oo, I hear laughter in the rain
Walking hand in hand with the one I love
Oo, how I love the rainy days
And the happy way I feel inside

Okay, there were two minor things wrong with the song. 1) We were not in the country, although we did walk around a very pretty golf course. 2) My hands are almost never warm. Other than that, it's spot on. My husband sings great tenor harmony, so we didn't even frighten the squirrels. I've now revealed to you all how very sappy I can be, but it was a joint effort, so I'm not even going to feel sheepish about it. Sappy can be awfully nice, don't you think?

Moving on, it's now time for something completely different. I'm getting a little chance to blog because Kedley is at the store picking up a birthday card for his Mom. (Happy Birthday Mom!!) I'm not going to take a lot more time about this, I'm just going to send you to some interesting information about WMD in Iraq and the New York Times essentially admitting that Saddam really was as close as a year away from having a nuclear bomb, and potentially passing the plans off to Al Qaeda. Not what you expected just a few days before the election? Well, you won't be surprised to know that the Times wasn't trying to do Republicans or the Bush administration a favor. Their "gotcha" was just a little more revealing than they intended.

Hmm. I don't think I've ever covered quite this much territory in a single blog post: from "Laughter in the Rain" to Saddam and his nuclear program. Not great continuity--hope I didn't throw you too big a curve. I don't usually delve very far into my own personal life in the Meow. Next time I'll probably just stick to the nukes. The walk was lovely, though.

The Looting Of History

Remember all the indignation during the course of major fighting in the Iraq war, when the battle for Baghdad had been underway for a few days and we were told that all of the artifacts in the Iraq National Museum had been looted? Remember the reports that were broadcast and published for weeks, that all 170,000 artifacts the museum possessed, almost the entire history of the cradle of civilization, were hauled away or destroyed by wild mobs? Remember how the U.S. military was blamed for the incredible loss to human history, because supposedly soldiers stood by and let it happen? Well, I stumbled upon something today that puts the lie to those very public and prolonged accusations.

It's an old post, from July of 2005, by Frank Warner, who gives a very complete history, revealing that most of what was taken from the museum was in an inside job, not the result of militarily-tolerated looting, and could have fit into a single large backpack!! Many of the fifteen thousand items taken were beads, amulets, and the like. Warner writes that a huge percentage of the museum's artifacts remained undisturbed. "Ninety-seven percent of the museum’s items – 485,500 pieces – were preserved, 95 percent undamaged. " Yet U.S. soldiers are still blamed for the ruination of history.

Have you ever seen reports correcting the record? Have you ever heard the American military exonerated by the media, or archaeologists? (One archaeologist Warner quotes, Donny George, director of the Iraq National Museum, as good as admits his intention to milk the U.S. for money because of the terrible "loss." He's definitely not going to admit that the loss wasn't nearly as terrible as first proclaimed.) Apparently, some media sources have admitted their errors, but in the hushed and shy tones the media are wont to use when revealing their own fallibility. I certainly never heard any of the corrections. I'd be interested to know if any of you have. I'm betting the ranks of those who have are pretty thin. History was looted all right, just not the history we thought.

The Basics--And Beyond

What are the things you can't live without? There are a lot of things we think we can't live without--love, productive employment, a place to live, purpose and health, among others--until we find ourselves lacking any of the above and discover that we can, indeed, survive for quite a while, notwithstanding the fact we may not enjoy it very much. Long term, we do need food and shelter, but under most conditions we can get by without them for considerably longer than most of us would ever imagine. Short term, though, what are the things that are absolutely imperative for a human to survive? Assuming the ambient temperature is within acceptable parameters, if short term is described in terms of minutes, you've got one possible answer--oxygen. If you extend short term to a few days, you can add water to the brief "absolute imperatives" list.

When you come right down to it, there's very little that's more valuable to human beings than clean, potable water, and clean, breathable air. I'm speaking in physical terms here; spiritual needs are just as real, in my opinion, and in the long run even more important, but that's not where I'm headed with this post, so for now, I'll stick to the tangible basics--water and oxygen. Let's start with oxygen. Here on Earth, we are part of a built-in exchange system--oxygen for carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide for oxygen. The animal kingdom breathes, and the plant kingdom breathes, in a mutually beneficial exchange, and the whole cycle goes on in perpetuity. It may be contaminated in places, but air is essentially ubiquitous. To a lesser extent, so is water. Water is very scarce in some regions, and too dirty to drink in others, but with two thirds of the planet covered in ocean, and a natural water distribution system in place, which we affectionately call weather, for most people there's enough water to meet their needs. (Sometimes too much.)

Not so in space, of course. Residents of the International Space Station must rely on the generosity of the home world to provide the breathable stuff, and the thirst quenchers. They're shipped up to the ISS in shuttles and rockets, and the water, especially, takes up a lot of precious cargo room in the process. They've been able to get away with this inefficient system for so long because, relatively speaking, the ISS is just a hop off the planet, close enough to make shipping these essentials doable, if not convenient. Any sci fi fan worth their salt, however, knows that if mankind is to reach more distant goals, like the Moon, Mars, or even beyond, there's going to have to be a radical transformation in the way air and water are provided to the space-faring adventurer.

Trudy Bell, writing an article for Science@NASA, tells of a new system so to be installed in the ISS, called Environmental Control and Life Support Systems, or ECLSS ( think eclair, only ecliss), that in many ways will resemble the water reclamation processes described in the Frank Herbert novel Dune. Herbert's book is set on the desert planet Arakkis, where water is so scarce that every possible molecule of it must be captured and recycled. Desert dwellers wear suits specially equipped to catch even the moisture of transpiration and perspiration, so that nothing H2O-related will escape collection and reprocessing. Sounds a bit icky, but that's basically what goes on here on Earth, just on a much larger scale, and you know what they say about desperate times. Anyway, Bell writes that the new system going in on the space station will grab all of the water out of the air, filter in and send it back for reuse. Same goes for the astronaut's urine, except, since the urine has a lot more contaminants, the reclamation rate will be about eighty-five percent, and they will have to jump through some interesting hoops to get the equipment to work.

The way they process the urine is to boil it, turn it into steam, then combined it with the water recovered from the air, and filter it all some more to make it pure enough to drink. According to Bell, using this method, they can produce a half a gallon of water an hour, which more than meets the needs of the three people currently living on the ISS. Sounds simple, right? However, there's a catch. Since there's no gravity in space to make the steam rise, in order to get the steam to separate from the impurities, or "brine," they have to spin the whole kit and caboodle to create artificial gravity. Wild, huh? Something as basic here on Earth as "heat (steam) rises" doesn't apply in space, so they have to go to extraordinary lengths to make it happen. Of course, here on Earth, gravity also comes from spinning, but that's a system God put in place and manages. We really don't have to come up with high tech ways to make it happen.

There are a couple of extra-cool things about this system, "above and beyond" (the pun is lame, I know) just providing drinking water. ECLSS is also designed to provide that oxygen we were talking about earlier:

In addition to providing drinking water for the crew, the water recovery system will supply water to the other half of ECLSS: the oxygen generation system (OGS). The OGS operates by electrolysis. It splits water molecules into oxygen for breathing and hydrogen, which is vented outside the spacecraft.

Nifty, don't you think? Take water, apply electric current, and voila, you get oxygen. That's how they've been doing it on Russian Soyuz rockets, and the (former) Mir space station for years. It's a tried and true method.

One other really cool thing I read about concerns the people who developed the ECLSS system. The are using their expertise to help meet humanitarian needs here on Earth. I followed a related link from NASA, which led me to another NASA article, this one by Katherine Trinidad and Steve Roy, about a project whereby NASA technology is being used to provide clean drinking water for an impoverished Iraqi village, with a broken well pump, and no access to other sources of water. Robyn Carrasquillo, engineering manager of the ECLSS project, and "engineers at the agency's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., helped install and test a water purification system in the northern village of Kendala." They've used their own time for the project, which is allowing the few villagers who managed to remain in their small community after the water supply was lost to stay in their homes. NASA-designed equipment is pumping out four gallons a minute for the desperate village!! It must be awfully satisfying to not just further mankind's aims in space, but to also help their fellow men (and women too, of course) here on the "blue marble."

Seems to me that by collaborating to provide this system for the village of Kendala, these NASA engineers are meeting some of the needs on the larger list I made earlier. For the villagers--a place to live, and health. For the engineers--productive employment and purpose. For both of them--the love of their fellow men. Science meets humanity. The best of both worlds. It may not be something we can't live without, but it's certainly something we can all live with.

Digging

For those of you who are remotely interested in the Big Dig and have been following its progress (not the horrendously expensive, obstacle ridden, near fiasco of a tunnel construction project in Boston, that became most expensive highway project in American history to date, but the less expensive, though no less budget crippling, obstacle ridden, infuriatingly complex garage/shop building project that has consumed Ked's and my money, time and limited patience for approximately the last five months), I have momentous news to report--THE GIANT DIRT PILE IS OFFICIALLY GONE!! Yes, our mountain of earth and rocks, produced by the excavation of the shop foundation, finally bit the dust, as it were, and none too soon, for, this being Oregon, if we hadn't disposed of it in time it was going to have to bite the mud. This is a big relief. There are now only about six more relatively major projects we have to do before the garage site can be inspected again by the erosion control inspector, and then by the building inspector for final approval. I wish I was exaggerating about what's left to do, but I'm not. We do, after all, live in the heart of The Alliance.

Now that you have the project update, perhaps we should move on to more interesting topics. I, for one, am ready for a break from even the thought of digging, and am instead spending my morning digging through various websites for information and punditry. I've read a couple things of note that I want to send your way. Although they are quite dissimilar in topic, I thought I'd toss them to you in one shot. I haven't taken the time to do any analysis of them myself, or to fully develop my own thoughts on what they have to say. I just thought they both were worthy of a recommendation for you to give them a look.

The first is a piece at Real Clear Politics, by Michael Barone, (via Instapundit) on the mental state of the American electorate with the November elections looming, why people are leaning the way they seem to be, and whether that's a good thing. The other is an article in The Weekly Standard, by Michael Yon, about journalists embedding with the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, why doing so has gotten harder in the last year, and why that needs to change. Neither of these pieces are fluff, or even particularly cheerful, and the one by Yon is quite long, but I really respect both these guys' opinions and think reading the articles was time well spent. I'd also be interested in any reactions you might have, especially to the Yon piece, so come back and share your thoughts if you feel like it.

Federalist Iraq

Neo-neocon has an interesting post on federalism and the future of Iraq. She says, "The Iraqi Parliament has passed a law allowing for the establishment of federal regions in Iraq." This could enable Iraq to head toward a form of government resembling the early days of U.S. self-rule, with a relatively weak central gov., and strong states, in a sort of loose cooperative. The question is whether that country could prosper under a system which allows more autonomy to the three main regions of the country--Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia, or whether that would lead to the ultimate breakup of the country, or domination by outside forces like Iran. She makes a case for there being some plausible mutual benefits to cooperation for the various regions and factions involved. Have a look.

And The Meme Goes On

Kedley and I are still in manual labor mode. I'll post something of more substance when I get the chance. In the meantime, the partial release of a Senate Intelligence Committee report is making headlines with its claims that there was no Saddam connection to al Qaeda prior to the Iraq war. It is the ongoing "Bush lied" meme, being given another go-round by the media, this time using the Intelligence Committee report as its authority. Thomas Joscelyn, at The Weekly Standard, however, says the "new Senate report on Iraq and al Qaeda ignores everything which gets in the way of its conclusions." He cites other evidence and sources, and makes a pretty good case that the Committee didn't really do the job of fact-finding it claimed to do, and gave credence to sources it should have taken with a truckload of salt, or at the very least questioned more closely.

I've never bought the "Bush lied" mantra. I heard too many of his speeches in their entirety to believe that any one reason was the driving force behind our deposing of Saddam. Bush never claimed that Saddam was connected to 9/11, nor that Saddam and al Qaeda were working hand in hand, merely that there had been some contact between Saddam's regime and bin Laden's organization. There is no question that the two had some goals in common. However, neither WMD, or a Saddam link to al Qaeda were the exclusive reason for taking us to war. There were many, no matter whether some choose to forget that for political reasons, including the fact Saddam had defied the conditions of the cease-fire at the end of the first Gulf war for over a decade.

Another thing which contradicts the premise that the President took us to war under false pretenses is the number of Senators who supported the war in the first place, who did so on the same evidence used by Bush, but now find it politically inconvenient to stand on their decision. Too many of the war's current opponents switched sides when it became unpopular with their constituents. They are now trying to justify this switch by claiming their original information was faulty. Joscelyn casts doubt on their claims. As I said, I've never believed that Bush pulled a fast one on everybody just so he could get oil, or revenge, or whatever else his motives supposedly were. None of those motivations make sense to me, so maybe Joscelyn's preaching to the choir here, but read the Weekly Standard article anyway. It should at least confirm that there's more to the debate than what's in the report from the Senate Committee. The Saddam, al Qaeda link question is only one part of the "why we went to war" equation, but with every piece it's important that we get it right, and it's important that we consider all the evidence. Joscelyn doesn't think the Committee did.

Personal note: Here I was intending to just pop up the link and a short paragraph to tell y'all what it was about. This whole blogging thing takes on a life of its own. I just can't seem to stop myself from letting those darned opinions loose, even when I have other pressing work to do. Okay, this time I really am heading out to work. I'm going now. This is me going. I've almost torn myself away. Come on Kat, a little self-control!! Bye.

Jumping On Three: One...Two...

Is Kurdistan an inevitability? It seems to be. The northern section of modern Iraq was never a natural part of that country, ethnically or politically, but was cobbled onto it at the end of World War II, by the British, over the objections of the Kurds, whose territory was divided between Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. My information comes from Michael Totten, writing at Reason Online, who says that it's only a matter of waiting for the right moment to jump, because Iraqi Kurds have already made up their minds to declare Kurdish independence. Kurdistan is already a reality in practice, if not in name. It has its own government, military, security, and state of being. It is safe, new, and optimistic, highly pro-American, highly pro-democracy, and does not see itself as having a bond with other Iraqis. In an informal referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan in January of 2005, in which there was 80% voter turnout, 98.7% of those casting a ballot voted to secede. Totten says it's not a matter of what the people intend to do; it's a matter of when they intend to do it. Their hunger for independence isn't a transient thing:

It’s hard to overstate just how long and how badly the Kurds have wanted out. Barzani’s father, the guerilla leader Moula Mustafa, once told Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, “We can become your 51st state and provide you with oil.” That was back in 1973.

Read Totten's whole article. It's fascinating, and explains exactly what the Kurds are waiting for, and gives some perspective on what the rest of Iraq thinks of the idea of an independent Kurdish state splintering off from the Arab one. Hint: The main point of contention is oil.

The Truth Will Out

I'm getting in a small reading break while my husband, manning the staple gun, catches up on tacking down the insulation I just put in place all over the garage. I'm trying not to touch anything inside the house, and I covered the chair I'm in with an old towel, to keep from spreading scratchiness all over the place. Hopefully it'll be enough not to make me regret caving to my longing for news and information. The lure of the computer is just too strong. I just can't resist the call of the Internet while I've got a minute or two free, but Ked'll be done soon, and then it's back to work for me. Once he's finished his stapling duties we get to tackle the ceiling together--definitely a two person job. I've already discovered that this batch of insulation is sentient, and has a twisted sense of humor, finding it ever so funny to fall down on my head while I'm trying to place it gently into its new home. Hmph!! You try to be kind, and what does it get you? Itchy eyes, nose, arms, neck....

Anyway, since I don't have lots of time, I went to the human filter of almost everything worth knowing on the Internet. Instapundit sent me to The Washington Times, which has informed me that truth is starting to overcome media indoctrination regarding WMD and Iraq. Jennifer Harper, writing for The Times, reports on the findings of a Harris poll, and says:

Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds. Pollsters deemed the increase both "substantial" and "surprising" in light of persistent press reports to the contrary in recent years.

Some of the shift in public opinion has come since the press conference in June where Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-NY) announced the discovery of 500 or so Desert Storm era chemical weapons, with mustard or sarin nerve agent, the information coming from newly declassified documents.

There are other indications in the poll that American opinion is not all negative on Iraq as well:

Meanwhile, the Harris poll offered some positive feedback on Iraq. Seventy-two percent of respondents said the Iraqi people are better off now thanunder Saddam Hussein's regime -- a figure similar to that of 2004, when it stood at 76 percent. In addition, 64 percent say Saddam had "strong links" with al Qaeda, up from 62 percent in October 2004. Fifty-five percent said that "history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq."

And although the response is tepid, American confidence in the Iraqis has improved: 37 percent said Iraq would succeed in creating a stable democracy, up five points since November.

Americans remain in touch with the realities of Iraq: 61 percent said the conflict has motivated more Islamic terrorists to attack the U.S. -- a number that has remained virtually unchanged since 2004.

I'm not generally too big on polling, especially political polling. The only poll that really counts politically is the one on election day, but Harper's article is interesting nonetheless. I do find it encouraging that information seems to make it to the people these days despite media reporting, or lack thereof. This thing we call the Internet has proven so useful in letting those of us who want more information than we can get from our local fish wrap satisfy our desire. Of course, you have to be careful on the Net, too, there's so much information, a good deal of it wrong, that you have to be sure you can trust your sources there, as well. However, at least online I can read everything from Instapundit to The Washington Times, and am not just stuck with what the local paper and network news anchors send my way. Choice is good.

Speaking of choices, my husband now informs me that I only have one available, and that's the choice to come out and take up my itchy toil once again. So, off I go. Feel free to pity us--unless you'd like to volunteer...? (Just kidding. The job will mercifully be done by the times anyone reads this. Aren't you glad?)