White Nights & Mice

5:57 AM
Went out to check my mice. Lots of activity, both pens. They're handling the winter very well. Note that all the paper scraps I put out yesterday and all the hay as well, even though it's only meadow hay and not alafalfa, is gone, tucked down into their holes. No wind, 20.5 degrees. This is colder than last night but yet so much more activity? Can't figure these little buggers out.

And in the still night I was quite aware of my white sidewalks. It snowed three days ago. I still haven't shoveled. I had thought that was because I'm a slob, but I've had an insight: Global Warming. I realize now what was before an unknown, unrecognized, splendor of my own soul; I recognize now that I act by an unconscious nobility. More clearly: I act by an imperious, subconscious, social conscience. I increase albedo.

I should restate that. In the interest of a more perfect accuracy I state this: that it is not that I increase albedo, but rather that, in good stewardship, I allow it to remain. Thus, heat, inherent in our daylight-sunlight-radiant light, that would otherwise be absorbed through my walks to rest in our Mother Earth, melting the poles and causing catastrophic flooding in New York, is instead reflected back, cast out, harmlessly into empty stellar space. The planet is saved, Manhattan dry, and my conscience... has done well.

My neighbors, on the other hand, have not shown the same good judgment. Their walks are scraped clean. And they probably feel morally superior to me, and presume a higher sense of civic duty. It's all a matter of insight.

What On Iran?

Big Hizbollah strike in Lebanon. Two speculations as to the timing: They want to interrupt the Paris 3 conference scheduled for Thursday, where it's expected the U.S., and possibly France, will pledge money and support to the Siniora government; or that Iran has simply issued orders that they want a flare-up to distract the U.S. from its apparent new focus on Iran.

I don't know. Nasrallah has been threatening this sort of thing for weeks.

Whatever, the Lebonese government probably isn't going to fold from pressure. If Nasrullah continues to push there will be civil war. That will be a mess, it will be very hard on Lebanon, it's not going to distract from our build-up toward Iran. The Iranian situation is either an administration intent, which will be done irrespective of public focus and support, or there is no such intent. I don't know. And I don't know how much public support can be developed for a strike on Iran anyway. Americans are exceptionally in an antiwar mood, and Europe is anti American. Utter fools. The Arab states on the other hand would be rather pleased if we put a drubbing on Tehran.

I just don't know what's going to happen. I would say that the "atmosphere" within America seems to be changed immensely since the election. It appears true that the only poll that really matters is the one election day. I do think though that we're still sort of 50/50. If there were a war strike 50% of Americans would be delighted.

War is logistics. If there is an administration intent to attack Iran it will take awhile yet to get everything in place. If we do hit them we'll be treated like Israel: private relief, public condemnation. Since there will be condemnation no matter what I hope we hit them hard. I would like to see their military taken out entirely, not just their nuclear capacity; everything, everywhere. I would like to see them so reduced that they would be afraid of invasion by Iraqis driving a a half dozen hand-me-down Humvees. That is the kind of thing America can do. it wouldn't hurt to remind the world what kind of power we can unleash.

Note: Ahmadinejad: "The United States is unable to inflict serious damage on Iran."

..................
The Speech:

Probably as policy the least remarkable of his speeches, very skillful though. I don't know that there was a line in the foreign policy part where the Democrats weren't forced to show support --I suppose because it was all expressed as support for the troops. I would have to actually read the text to accurately judge the skill.

I think there was only one reference to Iran, I think that referred to their enabling violence in Iraq.

There was one quite new thing, addressing the sectarian divide, Sunni/Shiia violence: "This isn't the fight anyone signed on for, but that's where we are now." (rough quote).

Full quote:

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

Really quite relaxed, confident. I think because of the skill of its expression. He didn't give an inch, but the expression was such that the Democrats couldn't really oppose, publicly, any statement, in that they weren't directly challenged. The intent of the speech was to buy time. Give it and get out. Bush knows that words now won't buy support. If nobody talks about it tomorrow you've bought time.

The Perfect Term

I've been thinking of all the criticism I've heard over the use of the term "surge", and all the criticism I've heard that "Bush doesn't communicate". As I remember "surge" was first used in the ISP report (the Baker/Hamilton Surrender Group Report) and it's been used by everybody since, except, I think, by Bush; at least I don't specifically remember him using the term.

It doesn't matter. The reason that the term is used is because it perfectly expresses the national mindset, which is that we've been defeated in Iraq, the effort isn't worth the candle, and the only decent thing to do is get out; and that any "last attempt" to win is just that, a "last chance", doomed to failure but allowed, as a sort of "fair play", because after all there is a certain subset of delusional Americans who not only think we can win but think that morally we're obligated to win. These people as well as being delusional are disgusting, but they do exist and they would put up a howl if we just up and quit. So we give them their last chance --a surge, a crest, a rapid diminution-- and then we can withdraw, and say: "See how many additional unnecessary deaths you caused, you war monger; you certainly are vile."

This is the entire reason for the use of the term "surge". The result is already known and it's contained within the necessary dissipation inherent to the concept, but it's the last failure we need before we're justified in pulling out. We give it our last shot, there are so many more deaths, but at least now it's clear whom to blame --they should be ashamed-- but now we can get out and it will not be defeat but statesmanship.

This nation just doesn't want to hear about war, about conflict, about struggle. It just doesn't want this easy life to be unpleasant. It just doesn't want to hear.

And this is the whole reason "Bush can't communicate", can't give a solid rational for why we're there. I find his speeches solid, I find his speeches convincing, I find his speeches brilliant. But he can't "communicate"... because nobody likes what he says. And won't hear what he says.

Three Bits

My idea is that it would be stunningly wrong for the administration to mount a media offensive to explain the significance of Iraq and all matters related. I think those arguments have been made with clarity. The MSM and the Democrat leadership will not hear those arguments. "There's nothing new" is always the response, and that's perfectly true, there is utterly nothing new in their minds and there never will be. To talk, to argue, to communicate, it's a waste because an impossibility. The only way there can be something new is if there's something new on the ground; that they would at least have to explain away, and that gives an opportunity for discussion.

And something does have to happen. What I think has to happen is another war. What saved us from defeat in Afghanistan was Iraq. The MSM didn't have time to create a defeat. With the media focus on Iraq Afghanistan had four years to stabilize a government. Every leftist I know believes Afghanistan is a defeat, but the American public doesn't know that, so the Afghans don't know that, so in fact they putter along and are doing fairly well.

Iraq though, constantly, every night, is a "defeat". and so it may become a defeat in fact as Americans get tired of hearing the dismal drone every night and so just want to get out so it will stop. (We could fight a decent war if we could just get Americans to play bingo rather than watch CBS.) There is one way just as good as bingo and that's to attack Iran. An attack is always kind of fun, and it's different, it's a break from the drone. Initially at least Americans would support it, most Americans, and it certainly would lead to discussion. And initially it would be successful and possibly useful.

I do think we're moving that way. I would settle for a little bit of "hot pursuit".

And in Iraq we could use something akin to hot pursuit. Democracy comes through the barrel of a gun. All governments are formed with the gun, and I do hope the administration is getting tired of Maliki pussyfooting with al-Sadr. "This is democracy, we were elected. Sadr is my ally and I protect him." Sorry. An armed militia not controlled by a national government is not democracy. It's a dangerously disruptive faction and the antithesis of centralized democratic government and has got to go.

I hope this will be explained to Maliki through the barrel of a gun. It would improve his theoretical understanding of the democratic concept. I do think that is going to happen. I think also the concept that in a national democracy a faction can not militarily align with another nation will be explained as well. It's this that may lead to some exchange with Iran.

It is interesting that you can't allow a democracy to be formed democratically. Elections, absent constitutional protections, a judiciary, and tradition, merely become autocracy by the majority. It takes awhile to learn true democracy, and it takes a gun. It's interesting that Americans if things work out), will at the point of a gun express the democratic hope of the mass of Iraqi people while their elected leaders will not. It's useful to remember that Ataturk didn't create democratic Turkey through the ballot, he did it through the military. Petraeus as Ataturk, hopefully.

................
An interesting article by Edward N. Luttwak. He dismisses the possibility of establishing a democratic Iraq but says that in the now destabilized Middle East there's a great deal that's positive to American interests. The great positive is the now excited Sunni/Shiite divide, and the fortuitous fact that just now there is only one nation, the U.S., that has the power and wealth to effectively help either side.

In each nation there are differing interests, Sunni vrs Shiia, and one interest congruent with American interest, and it's sometimes Sunni, sometimes Shiia.

Lebanon, for example. The Siniora government, Sunni, is in opposition to Hezbollah, our and Israel's enemy, and resistant to Syria. They seek our help, and it's help we give. In Iraq it's the Abdul Aziz al-Hakim party, Sciri (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq), Shiite/Arab, that seeks our help against both the Sunni insurgency and against the Iranian/Persian leaning Shiite/Arab Moqtada al-Sadr. And meanwhile Arab/Sunni Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, the whole bunch, seek U.S. help against the looming threat of an Iran possibly victorious through Iraq to Syria to Lebanon, and possibly with a nuke as well.

So sometimes the Sunnis seek our alliance, sometime the Shiia. It seems to be Luttwak's idea that with this active schism of interest the U.S. can play one faction against the other and keep things to a controlled boil. That's a little too much "real politic" for me but the analysis of the contending interests sure seems excellent. It could be used to stabilize Lebanon against Hezbollah; break Syria from Iran; it could enable an effective quashing of al-Sadr and give some backbone to Maliki; it could give some leverage over Arabia in general; it could isolate Iran.

The fly in the ointment is that it seems this will only work as long as Iran is an active threat, and that's a threat we would like to see pass... But no matter. At least in the short term this is an encouraging analysis because it argues that in every area in the Mid East where America has an interest they have a natural Arab ally.

...............
Wretchcard references this article though in a different context. His point (in commenting on another article) is that what holds the terrorist movement united against America is something termed "Narrative"; it's the single-minded focus on the story of the enemy, the crusader, the West, and on all the ills the West has brought to Muslim lands. There's agreement on that. Small cells, under no unified command, are united by that story, and so they plot against the United States and against the West. But in fact, that's all they have in common, their local politics are very different. The idea is that, if these cells can be forced to take a position on particular issues, having no unifying solidifying central command, they will then fracture one from the other on these subsidiary disputes and so in losing unity lose force.

Iraq is an example. The Jihad against Americans is actually not strong. They put far more effort into killing each other than into killing Americans, and they're far better at that than killing Americans. I'd always thought the reason we were so seldom attacked is because if we were they knew they'd get their butt's kicked. That's undoubtedly a factor, but by this analysis a large part of it is because they don't in fact hate Americans as much as they hate each other. And of course many prefer America. It's not because they love us as democrats, it's because we have guns and we keep them safe. We prevent civil war, and we may ally with a party actually inclined toward a recognizably western form of democratic government.

An interesting analysis.

I have to close with an interesting bit from Mark Steyn in The Corner. The comment was on Hillarie's "listening tour" but it's appropriate to serious conversation in general:

01/20 1:05PM

Barring another direct attack on the US mainland (ie, not Bali nightclubs, London Tubes or US targets overseas) I don’t think in 2008 the American people will be looking for someone who can “stare down jihadists.” If anything, it was already clear in ’06 that huge numbers of the American people have psychologically checked out of the war...

When everyone’s talking about “guaranteeing health care”, “leading the fight against global warming”, “strengthening our middle class and ending the shame of poverty” ... when everyone’s cruising on autoplatitude, a guy who’s obsessed with “staring down jihadists” will sound as nutty as a fellow trying to win American Idol by doing the Mad Scene from Lucia di Lammermoor.

....................
(1/24/o7; 2:15 AM)
Westhawk has an excellent analysis of the internal divisions in Iraq and the general region, the divisions we have to play if we're to be successful. The general idea is that a unitary government of all Iraq is still possible because there are still factions that want it. I quote only one paragraph from a fairly long article. I especially like the last sentence (which I've placed in italics)

The American intention to simultaneously attack the Sunni extremists and al-Sadr's militia seems to favor Mr. al-Hakim. If the Americans (and Kurds) crush al-Sadr's organization, Prime Minister al-Maliki would seem to no longer have the support necessary to retain his office. The Americans have a replacement in mind: a moderate, cross-sectarian alliance of the Sunni Islamic Party, the Kurdish parties, and Mr. al-Hakim's SCIRI party. Mr. al-Maliki and al-Sadr have thus far convinced Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to refrain from blessing this arrangement on the principle that it would break up Shi'ite unity. It is ironic that the Americans may be determined to do with force what they cannot seem to accomplish through political negotiation and persuasion.

I would comment: the proper expression is not "ironic", better would be, "It's about time."

If It Don't Rain, The Roof Don't Leak

And if it's not raining it won't.

It's necessary to make things perfectly clear:

First, there is no Islamic threat. Proof: 9 / 11. Once. We had one attack. One! A bunch of nut jobs. Nothing since. There is no threat. And anyway, I hardly even remember that 9 / 11 stuff. I don't live in the past.

Second, "If we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them over here; we'll face nuclear, chemical, and biological attack" Who says? Just a bunch of Republicans and they just want to get reelected. Leave them alone and they'll disappear. It worked before and it will work again. I've been around a long time and nothing like this ever happened when I was a kid. Just ignore them, they'll go away.

Third, and this is the big one. The War Is Over! We won, Bush lost. Finitio! Oh, it was a hard fight, we fought with everything we had: Quagmire, Brutality, Murder, Gitmo, Massive Numbers of Innocent Lives Lost, Abu Grahib, Homeland Spying, The War Against Our Own Citizens, Incompetence. It was a tough fight but we won.

There is the matter yet of Iraq... Who Cares? This war never had anything to do with Iraq anyway and anyway it's not our problem. Now that Bush is gone, or as good as gone, Iraq will go away too... There is the situation with Iran and Syria... Good people. You can reason with them, and they hate Bush too. But you've got to watch that Bush guy. He's dangerous, he thinks he's still President, he could screw this up too. We can't drop our guard. No way are we going to let him move against Syria or Iran and make matters worse.

All in all, things are looking up. In two years we'll have the White House as well as Congress and there won't be any problems anymore.

If it's not raining it won't rain. And I don't want to think about it.

Happy Days, guest blogger.

................
Mouse here:

Note to Hugh Hewitt, and others critical that the administration hasn't gone on a media offensive to promote the surge and explain the consequences of failure. Do you think Happy Days wants to hear?

We're all Happy Days now, or at least Happy Days is ascendant, and any argument that we're not in happy days is just the boy crying wolf. There is no argument that can penetrate this happiness so there is no argument. To repeat and repeat some argument contrary to this happiness is just to set into the mind like iron the recognition that the man speaking is a buffoon. This would be Bush, this would be the administration. To speak now is to be mocked, to speak now is to be dismissed. Nothing can speak now, only action. Things have to happen on the ground.

It should be noted though, that the second tier voice is still heard. There are just too many, the MSM can't mock each one. So from each second tier voice there is an argument that is heard by some, and this is the base that will maintain the sane. But for the Administration...? Once mocked, once defeated, all that's left is power.

.................
Note: A far better tactic than the one suggested by Hugh. Hugh wants serious argument. If serious argument would work, if Americans would listen to serious argument, the Democrats never would have gained control of congress. There's never been more obviously a less serious party, but unfortunately, also a not serious electorate, at least by about half. But if not serious, the half that voted Democrat is not necessarily corrupt. And possibly they don't like mean people, and anyway, in public debate, if one person can be pointed out to be mean, that person loses the "moral high ground". --Pelosi said this, in explanation of the timing to get troops to Iraq for the surge:

"The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources," Pelosi, head of the Democratic-led House, told ABC's Good Morning America. "That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way."

Which means Bush is thinking: Start getting them killed as soon as possible because then the Democrats won't cut off funding because they won't dare; to which White House spokeswoman Dana Perino responded:

"Those particular comments were poisonous. Speaker Pelosi was arguing in essence that the president is putting young men and women in harm's way for tactical political reasons," [The President] "is sending the troops to Iraq quickly because he wants to win."

Not as strong as it might have been. "Poisonous, poisonous, poisonous" would have been better. The point is that there are arguments that are true. If Americans no longer want to hear that Iraq is a serious matter, it might at least penetrate their consciousness that the one party that has been using this war for pure "tactical political reasons" is the Democrat party. It wouldn't hurt to point that out. This would be attacking their motives, which is probably now exactly where the attack should be made. It's an argument that might cut ice because it's true. And I don't believe it would turn things ugly, I think it would even things out. The Democrats are effective through constant repetition of charges not true, or overblown. I think the administration could be effective just by deciding to point out that some Democrats are not noble. Bush can't do it, Cheney can't do it, Condi can't do it. Just about anybody else can. If that's the qoute of the day the press has to go with it. Spread it around.

Note second.

I remember when Clean Gene did well in New Hampshire and just before Wisconsin LBJ announced he wouldn't run again. Then Bobby jumped in. Obama has been doing very well against Hillary. Obama is Nobody but he's Not Hillary. I see Richardson is now giving the race some thought, and Richardson is Somebody. Thank you Gene, than you Obama.
(12:36 AM)

Who's All Bushed?

In a state now of mild despondency, due to a setback in personal matters and with my present life seeming a little disassociated and unreal, I thought I would reflect a bit on the state of the politics of the nation.

Same same. I just can't see any difference. We're in a war, we may face a stunning defeat, and the Democrats are concerned with minimum wage and are about to pass a resolution opposing the "surge" of 21,000 troops... and there doesn't seem to be much emotion on this matter one way or the other.

Am I projecting my personal emotions or is this the state of the State? I have felt that since Nov 7 all the heat has gone out. The Democrats won, that's what this war was all about, and now the war is over. What now happens in Iraq, at least for the present, is not only a matter of little consequence, it's not even a matter of particular interest. The battle won, behind us, it's time now to move on... To no place in particular. Once you've won, there's really not much more to do. That is, not until the next battle forms, which will be 2008.

Or it could just be me. I am pooped. Right now I would just as soon sleep as read, but I simply don't sense the passion anymore, on one side or the other. The positions remain the same --right war / wrong war; progress / quagmire; Victory / Withdrawal, that sort of thing-- but not the passions.

This could turn out okay. Possibly we've entered a period of "benign neglect", where, with so few people paying intent attention, the military will be left to do its job. If they fail, Ho Hum, Bush is a Jerk. If they succeed... That would be stunning.

But again, maybe it's just me. I'm pooped, possibly the nation is in a rage. I've missed it.

Good Speech

Good Speech, quite excellent. Two things:

• --The Maliki government will cooperate; and
• --Border problems with Syria and Iran will be addressed and Syria and Iran will be recognized as problems.

Both points are absolutely essential. Both were merely stated as positions, but they have to be threats. Syria and Iran have to pay. That's the easy one, that's the one in our own power. And Maliki has to play. The Iraqi troops have to be committed to Baghdad, and all the militias, both sides, Sunni and Shiia, have to be neutralized. The manner can vary, but they can't remain independent of the national government. That the manner can vary I make as a stipulation because I don't think it's been a terribly bad deal that Shiia have been shooting Sunnis. Somebody has to do it. But if civil order is to develop those Sunnis not violent have to know that they are protected from violence, and that can happen only if the only legitimate violence is controlled by the government. Shia may not have to be killed, they will have to disband. And of course the armed government must be seen as protective of all interests, Sunni, and Shiite. And if Maliki doesn't play? That's when it will be necessary to use a very quiet, very forceful diplomacy.

I'll note too that Bush did mention that those opposing his plan have some obligation to explain how their plan might be better.

Possibly more later.

.....................
Posted by Michael Ledeen at The Corner:

Did We Just Declare War on Iran and Syria? [Michael Ledeen]
Try parsing this carefully:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

I've read that last sentence maybe ten times. Those "networks providing advanced weaponry and training" certainly are based in Iran and Syria. It sounds like he said we are going after terrorist training camps and the IED assembly facilities, doesn't it?

Well? Posted at 10:47 PM

Betty Ford

Looking at little Mrs. Betty Ford, grieving. It's impossible not to feel a tenderness and gentleness and affection for a lady who's lost a good husband at such an advanced age. This is the final and inevitable ending of an extraordinary success.