A Fourth War in Europe?

America has fought three wars in Europe in the 20th Century - World Wars I and II, and the Cold War.

However, this article from The New Republic could explain the genesis of America's Fourth European War.

Key paragraph:

Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes. It is reasonably likely. Sands's book contains an interview with an investigating magistrate in a European nation, which he describes as a NATO nation with a solidly pro-American orientation which supported U.S. engagement in Iraq with its own soldiers. The magistrate makes clear that he is already assembling a case, and is focused on American policymakers. I read these remarks and they seemed very familiar to me. In the past two years, I have spoken with two investigating magistrates in two different European nations, both pro-Iraq war NATO allies. Both were assembling war crimes charges against a small group of Bush administration officials. "You can rest assured that no charges will be brought before January 20, 2009," one told me. And after that? "It depends. We don't expect extradition. But if one of the targets lands on our territory or on the territory of one of our cooperating jurisdictions, then we'll be prepared to act."

I cannot imagine the United States sitting still in such an event, even in an Obama administration. Obama would be pushed into doing something, if for no other reason than his inaction would be seen as political retribution - and of a decidedly more cowardly form than actually doing the trials himself.

It would mean the destruction of the NATO alliance. I don't think Europe really wants to go there.

Signs of a witch-hunt continue...

Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial that should frighten any American who is concerned about the direction this country is headed.

Should Obama be elected, it is becoming increasingly likely that in order to sell retreat in the global war on terror, he will proceed to turn those who carried out a reasonably successful policy into criminals. He has to. There will be no other way to sell a return to the failed policy of treating terrorists like your garden-variety thugs.

Unpatriotic Conservatives, 2008 style...

In 2003, David Frum wrote a brilliant takedown of anti-war conservatives. It pulled very few punches, and laid out a compelling case that they were clearly .

Today, though, there is a new batch of unpatriotic conservatives who are perfectly willing to sell out our troops by sitting out 2008 - perfectly willing to let Obama win, despite the deleterious effects he will have on the country. If there are better words than unpatriotic and selfish, I'd like to hear them.

Quite frankly, they are going about immigration all wrong. We do have some problems, particularly with gangs and drugs. But how do we deal with that aspect of border security when we waste our time raiding meat-packing plants and construction sites? We don't. But it provides plenty of bloody shirts for people like Michelle Malkin to wave in the immigration debate.

But when they will, through their inaction, elect someone who is likely to surrender in the war on terror, someone who is stupid enough to meet with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and someone who will likely appoint Supreme Court justices who will be more inclined to engage in judicial putsches on issues like gay marriage, it's time to call them out.

What is truly the most important issue facing America, immigration, or the war on terror? I think most Americans would argue the latter. Holding our troops hostage over immigration is despicable, and it will not win friends.

Iraq Progress...

Powerline has a very good post on the Iraqi campaign of the war on terror.

There are big issues that clearly warrant supporting McCain over Obama. AJ-Strata lays it out. The country needs to win the global war on terror farmorethan we need to placate conservatives on immigration.

U.S. Congressman a FARC go-between?

Interpol has recently confirmed that Raul Reyes's laptop has not been tampered with. If that is the case, then Gateway Pundit raises an interesting bombshell.

Perhaps it's time to ask Barack Obama if he intends to sell out Colombia to the tender mercies of Hugo Chavez and FARC.

Playing with fire...

If Marc Ambinder is correct, there is a very strange idea of healing going around certain camps.

This is frightening - because if so, then one way or another, we will have instability in America for a long time. The reason is best explained by Orson Scott Card in the afterword to his book Empire:

Rarely do people set out to start a civil war. Invariably, when such wars break out both sides consider themselves to be the aggrieved ones. Right now in America, even though the Left has control of all the institutions of cultural power and prestige -- universities, movies, literary publishing, mainstream journalism-- as well as the federal courts, they feel themselves oppressed and threatened by traditional religion and conservatism. And even though the Right controls both houses of Congress and the presidency, as well as having ample outlets for their views in nontraditional media and an ever-increasing dominance over American religious and economic life, they feel themselves oppressed and threatened by the cultural dominance of the Left.

And they are threatened, just as they are also threatening, because nobody is willing to accept the simple idea that someone can disagree with their group and still be a decent human being worthy of respect.

Can it lead to war?

Very simply, yes. The moment one group feels itself so aggrieved that it uses either its own weapons or the weapons of the state to "prevent" the other side from bringing about its supposed "evil" designs, then that other side will have no choice but to take up arms against them. Both sides will believe the other to be the instigator.

Could Ambinder be blowing smoke? I hope so. But both Hillary and Obama would have motives to pursue such investigations. Hillary has a vindictive streak that is bigger than the Rocky Mountains.

Obama would probably have to do so in order to placate his political base, especially if he has had to back down from a confrontation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General Petraeus over Iraq, a confrontation that would probably torpedo his administration. You thought the 1993 gays in the military controversy was rough?

With screw-ups like this... no wonder people don't respect the law

It seems that the folks who decide on legal immigration have bollixed things up once again. This time, they are refusing to grant a visa to an interpreter who helped our troops in Iraq, even though he and his family are clearly facing death or physical harm from terrorists.

The bureaucrats at INS would not even take note of the letters in the file from Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and General David Petraeus. One would think any reasonable person would take note of said letters, the medal awarded, and the fact that this guy is facing the very real risk of physical harm.

This is not the only situation. I became aware, via a second-hand account, of a Colombian family who faced a somewhat similar dilemma. They didn't translate for the US, but they had heard of a FARC "recruiting campaign" that was to take place at the school where one of their sons attended. They tried to get here legally, but ultimately, when faced with the likelihood of their son being kidnapped and used as cannon fodder by a terrorist group, they came here on tourist visas and overstayed.

We don't know why the INS decided not to approve this, and to even label him a terrorist. And that is the problem with that bureaucracy. With screw-ups like these, it is no wonder a lot of otherwise good people are deciding that the law is fouled up.

This is why I reject the whole Malkin/Tancredo approach on immigration. Ultimately, we are dealing with people. It's not numbers, it's not about culture, it's people - individual persons who deserve to get equal treatment under the law.

The Marine Corps would be perfectly justified in bringing this translator and his family home, providing them with support, looking after them, and daring ICE to come after them. This man had more than earned American citizenship for himself and his family by coming to our aid in helping liberate Iraq. They should also assign their top JAGs to this and similar cases where the fouled up immigration system is causing problems for them. Other services should do the same. The Army, for instance, had an illegal immigrant who took part in the liberation of Iraq - doing the defense of our country that the likes of Reverend Wright have vehemently opted out of (yes, I know Wright served in the Marine Corps - but that service does NOT cancel out "God Damn America").

But this calls for a total revamping of immigration law in this country. It also means that we pass common-sense reforms that will deal with the real problems. Big Lizards has made a number of good posts on this issue, and the discussion should start there. There needs to be some penalty for breaking the law. But contrary to the assertions we hear from the right, it is not a choice between deportation and nothing. There are ways to ensure that those who broke the law pay a price for their actions. If they are fined, and agree to a form of probation, they have not received amnesty, contrary to the assertions from Michelle Malkin.

It is hard to respect laws when they are applied very poorly. Scrap the system, and start over.

Reading suggestion for Barack Obama...

Eli Lake's January 2007 article is well worth the read.

In fact, Barack Obama should have read it before he spouted off on McCain today.

Money quote:

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

A gaffe was made, but not by Barack Obama.

A Prince of a Soldier...

Prince Harry's combat career has come to an end.

In this case,it was due to some leaks from foreign media. The statement from the MoD says volumes.

It is well worth keeping in mind when one discusses leaks. Not only did a leak put Prince Harry at risk, it also now places the troops he fought alongside at risk. His early departure will mess with his unit, no matter how many contingency plans were made by his superiors.

Just whose side is the press on?

al-Qaeda's Nemesis: The Pointy-Haired Boss

The Army's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has studied captured documents from Iraq, and has some interesting things to say. (Hat tip to Richard Saunders at Wild Turkeys.)

This paragraph jumped out at me:

"These documents tell us more about AQI than they do about Iraq," said Brian Fishman, an associate at the West Point center and co-author of its Sinjar analysis. "When you've got hundreds . . . entering the country with different skill sets and different intentions, you have to build a bureaucracy to use your resources efficiently.

(Emphasis added.)

Well, I've been working in corporate America too long, so here's my vision of a young al-Qaeda manager's annual review:

"Abdul, I see that you are not mentoring and grooming enough fedayeen to enter into management roles. Now, we are under a fatwa that requires us to engage in a broader, more inclusive search for managerial talent . . . "

"Selim, the fedayeen I recruit on Monday are going to be blowing themselves up on Wednesday! In case you missed it, I'm running the al-Anbar Martyrdom Department, and we've always had extremely high turnover, it kind of comes with the mission statement! How in the hell am I supposed to mentor some idiot from West Bumf***, Syria--who probably can't even read the Qu'ran, fer Allah's sake--when he's going to be DEAD in a couple of days?"

"Abdul, hey, I know it's frustrating, but you've got to see it from my side of the jebel. I have to keep al-Zawahiri happy. Ever since he read Deming--may that infidel dog roast slowly over a fire of goat feces--he's been going on about 'Total Quality Jihad' and 'suicide vest quality circles,' and don't get me started about how he wants 'proactive efforts to gain and leverage mindshare.' Then there's the 'Allah Akhbar' web portal project . . . I mean, the guy wants to use Java, when all the smart money is going to Ruby on Rails . . . doesn't ANYONE in the executive cave ever read the trade journals anymore? Anyway . . . look, if you find a really smart guy, could you try to talk him into applying for the management track?"

"Selim, I did that--HR shot him down for being a Alawite."

"Oh, yeah, I forgot." (Pause) "Did you find another job for him?"

"Selim, when I said 'HR shot him down,' I wasn't using a figure of speech."

"Bummer."

And that will be the downfall of al-Qaeda and Islamism in general: they will gradually become just another sclerotic bureaucracy managed according to the buzzword du juor.

The decisive battle won?

The anti-war movement has retreated from its efforts to de-fund Iraqi campaign, which might not sound like much, but this is probably a sign that the decisive battle may be decided soon.

Let's lay this out very clearly: Our troops were winning on the battlefield. The terrorists have no hope of forcing us out. Their only hope was for the anti-war movement here to force us to prematurely quit.

And the anti-war movement has failed, and in their failure, they have tied the Democrats to working for defeat. Now,they are trying to keep us from a "long-term presence" in Iraq. They are clearly in a retreat, and they will not have the votes to override a veto. Nor can they stop President Bush from making an agreement without looking like they are undercutting the troops.

George W. Bush may have just managed to win the decisive battle in the war on terror.

Victory in sight?

The events of the last year have some people talking about victory. One of them is the President of the United States.

Money quote:

But I want to tell you what the history will say. The history will say, it was when you were called upon, you served, and the service you rendered was absolutely necessary to defeat an enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) It will say loud and clear that this military, comprised of brave men and women who sacrificed on behalf of a noble cause called peace -- the men and women of this military understood that we're in an ideological struggle; that we're facing cold-blooded murderers who kill the innocent to achieve their hateful vision of a future.

This is the question. Our troops understand. But which politicians understand? Listen to those who are running for President, and think this over from now until November.

Another Democrat protecting Iran

It looks like Joe Biden is now joining James Webb in going to the mat for Iran.

Let's review some of what Iran has been doing:
* They support Hezbollah, the terrorist group that bombed the Marine Barracks in 1983, with all sorts of weapons, including C-802 anti-ship missiles.

* They have provided weapons to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan - weapons used in fatal attacks against our troops.

* The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has sent advisors to terrorist groups and the insurgents in Iraq.

* Iranian leadership has openly declared their intentions to acquire nuclear weapons and to wipe Israel (perhaps America's best friend in the Middle East) off the map.

Biden's defense of this regime is appalling. What part of "Iran helps terrorists kill our troops" doesn't he understand?

They want us there...

The Iraqi government seems to be eyeing a long-term American military presence.

If I'm a Democrat running for Congress or the White House, the "Oh, crap!" meter is running very high at this news. If there is this formal request that the United States of America maintains a long-term presence in Iraq, it becomes much harder for the Dems to please their political base. It would put them in line with Muqtada al-Sadr as well as Iran and Syria, but that would be it.

Oh, and they would be leaving an ally in the lurch. Typical of them (see their treatment of Colombia under President Uribe), but it won't play well here, especially if the declaration of intent becomes public.

0-for-40

That is the Democrats' track record on cutting and running from Iraq.

And now, the surge has shown signs that it is succeeding. And it is causing a turnaround in public opinion, according to Pollster.com.

Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster. The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.

In essence, the battle of public opinion is being won here, and that means our troops have a chance to win the war over there.

And the Democrats now get to explain reality to their base.

Pakistan...

The situation in Pakistan is a very rough one. I've written something at Strategypage, but we need to talk the options.

Now, we hear that President Bush may be reassessing the relationship with Musharraf. We do need to assess the situation, but we have something else to think about: Over 40,000 coalition troops who we need to supply - from us and thirteen allies. Fourteen if you count Afghanistan and the 50,000-plus personnel there.

Musharraf is friendly, and he is rational. Given that Pakistan has nearly 100 nukes, we need to keep him in as long as possible, until we have a better idea who will succeed him. But right now, things are risky.

Henry Waxman reprises Cotton Mather...

Henry Waxman's latest charges against Blackwater remind me of the time I read something Cotton Mather wrote about one of the Salem witch trials in high school.

It was not fun to read - not because I tend to prefer a good Tom Clancy novel, but because there was no interest in justice. If you ask me, Waxman has made up his mind about Blackwater already. Any hearing he has will be about as fair as those trials were back in the day.

Think of it as left-wing McCarthyism.

A power play fails...

The Dems had to pull their joke of a surveillance bill yesterday. In essence, they were trying to force a law-enforcement model on the military - and to do so without allowing any amandments or a real debate.

That power play failed, and the Dems are going to shift to more SCHIP demagougery - an endeavor that will be more likely to succeed thanks to the antics of some on the right.

Not a good situation for the Dems at all.

Hillary's Dukakis moment...

Michael Dukakis once proudly proclaimed that he was a card-carrying member of the ACLU. We know how that worked out for him in the 1988 general election.

Fast forward to 2007. Hillary Clinton, with her Senate vote, chose to defend MoveOn.org's defamatory ad aimed at General Petraeus. Petraeus has a 52% favorable rating - a lot higher than the 11% Congress has. The military in general is also something that 69% of people have at least "quite a lot" of confidence in. Compare that to the 14% Congress gets.

Republicans need to hammer this constantly. The Democrats are undercuttign our military while the country is at war. Most people won't stand for that.

Priorities quiz...

Here is a very simple priorities quiz:
You have a choice to either cheap shot the Vice President of the United States or you can dish some abuse on a head of state who has denied the Holocaust. Do you:

A. Compare the Vice President to one of the worst cinematic villains in history, or
B. Take a hard line against the nutcase head of state, and urge New York to make sure the piece of shit is on his own while he is there.

That is the kind of choice that gets made in 2008. America needs to choose wisely.