tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189529952024-03-13T19:32:24.695-07:00Smell of FreedomBeware: Waffling and long-windedness abounds.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-57764141067373818262008-02-08T07:38:00.000-08:002008-02-08T07:42:12.523-08:00The Decline of Western CivilisationThis comment by Matt Helm at <A HREF="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016910.php#comments">Captain's Quarters</A> is one of the most profound things I have read in a long time:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>In many ways, Williams is representative of the primary problem facing the West: A lack of pride in our culture because of perceived feelings of guilt over the legacy of colonialism and imperialism. This masochistic, and I would argue nihilistic sense of guilt has been promulgated by proponents of multiculturalism since the 1960s and has settled upon Western culture like a burial shroud. The sad truth is many Western intellectuals and thinkers do want to see the destruction of our culture and society. They do want to be punished for the 'sins' of Western imperialism. They do want to die at the hands of "the oppressed." The problem is, they want to take the rest of us with them! If the West is going to survive as a cultural and civilizational entity; if we want to pass on our values of freedom and liberty; if we want our children and their children to enjoy a Bach cantata, to read Voltaire, to play Mass Effect; if we want to keep who and what we are, then we are going to have to get over this guilt and accept ourselves for who and what we are. We have to accept that Western culture did do some horrible things--just like all the other cultures throughout history. So, what do we do? We learn from our mistakes and move forward--not wallow in our guilt. Contrary to what the multiculturalists would have us believe, the West is not evil--in fact, I'd contend that, warts and all, Western civilization has contributed the most benefits to the human condition than all the other cultures put together.<br /></BLOCKQUOTE>Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-70778036170824836672007-07-06T04:07:00.000-07:002008-12-10T06:59:47.575-08:00USS Kitty HawkThe U.S.S. Kitty Hawk is in town and parked at Garden Island, inside Sydney Harbour (which is our main naval yard). I went there to take some photos. I don't have time to clean them up just now, but here's a quick one.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbYEx0GPIgeobo5WyzjvO3SgU3FMhE55N37RWZHjuGUjs8PGb0OtfXMeNkkvHa_NxQVdPU-51EtuiUaNK3KNnayjz-wwL9nlmPHqV-cJdHMOvSekRfsgbUHStKjG_cGK9OyGfu/s1600-h/USS+Kitty+Hawk+Garden+Island.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbYEx0GPIgeobo5WyzjvO3SgU3FMhE55N37RWZHjuGUjs8PGb0OtfXMeNkkvHa_NxQVdPU-51EtuiUaNK3KNnayjz-wwL9nlmPHqV-cJdHMOvSekRfsgbUHStKjG_cGK9OyGfu/s400/USS+Kitty+Hawk+Garden+Island.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5084039451291674466" /></a>Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1150834158970078972006-06-20T13:07:00.000-07:002006-06-20T13:09:19.006-07:00Lesser Known GWoT Allies #1<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><br /><TR><TD VALIGN=TOP><H3>Romania</H3><br />Romania's name comes from its historical position as part of the far eastern extent of the Roman empire and it is a traditionally Christian nation. <A HREF="http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/cia05/romania_sm05.gif">Here</A> is a small map for the curious. Romania recently joined NATO and the EU. <A HREF="http://english.mapn.ro/operations/index.php">Their troops</A> in Iraq (860) and Afghanistan (550) are garnering a little more attention lately, but one still rarely hears of them. On a per capita basis they have a significant commitment. Shamefully for me, it is greater than that of Australia, which has a similar population to Romania.<br /><br />It seems that the current high level of NATO/US Military friendliness with Romania is likely the result of their co-operation during the Balkans campaigns, fighting which was took place close to their home. Interestingly, some of the Romanian soldiers are conscripts, but they are planning to phase out conscription for an all-volunteer military some time in 2007.<br /><br />Their military seems fairly modern, despite the image created by the Soviet hand-me-down equipment they are frequently seen operating, and they work fairly closely with the other nations involved in the GWoT. In Iraq, 149 Romanian Engineers and 56 Military Intelligence types operate in Ad Diwaniyah under Polish command. Working with the British in An Nasiriyah is an Infantry Batallion approx. 500 strong, along with 100 Military Police (including with the scary-looking fellow on the right). There is also a medical contingent at Abu Ghraib and a few staff officers here and there. In Aghanistan the main Romanian force is an approx. 400 strong Infantry Batallion stationed in Kandahar as well as some officers training Afghan forces.<br /><br />Sadly several Romanian soldiers have died in <A HREF="http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=356186&lng=1">Iraq</A> and Afghanistan. The colourful names of units which had been deployed to the sandbox under the Romanian flag include "Black Scorpions", "White Sharks", "Bold Eagles" and "Carpathian Hawks".<br /><br />The Romanians remain staunch allies with no plans to pull out <A HREF="http://www.roembus.org/english/news/international_media/2005/September/29Sept_SEET_Romania%20Promises%20Military%20Assistance%20to%20Afghanistan.htm">until they finish the job</A>. You can find information about Romania <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania">here</A> (looks like a great holiday destination!), more pictures of their military <A HREF="http://www.mapn.ro/fotodb/albums.php">here</A> and their official military home page <A HREF="http://english.mapn.ro/">here</A>.<br /></TD><TD VALIGN=TOP><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Romania/Iraq/Romanian_soldiers_in_mission_2004.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Romania/Iraq/Romanian_soldiers_in_mission_2004_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=160 STYLE="margin-bottom: 10px"></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Romania/Iraq/MILITAR_DIN_BATALIONUL_265_POLITIE_MILITARA_4.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Romania/Iraq/MILITAR_DIN_BATALIONUL_265_POLITIE_MILITARA_4_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=180 STYLE="margin-bottom: 10px"></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Romania/Afghanistan/Afganistan23.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Romania/Afghanistan/Afganistan23_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=180 STYLE="margin-bottom: 10px"></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Romania/Iraq/col_Pedersen_felicitand_militarii.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Romania/Iraq/col_Pedersen_felicitand_militarii_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=247></A><br /></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><br /><TR><TD VALIGN=TOP><H3>Italy</H3><br />Italy has a significant contingent of troops in Iraq – 2850 strong – assisting with security operations since the end of the invasion phase in 2003. They plan to have them <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1792196,00.html">back home by December 2006</A>. Sadly, Italian forces have suffered significant losses, around 32 dead. One week which saw the death of eighteen of their Special Police (including <A HREF="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/11/mil-031112-rferl-113650.htm">fourteen in one bombing</A>) likely contributed to their decision to remove their troops. I think the Italians deserve more international recognition for <A HREF="http://www.examiner.com/a-128694~Italy_PM__Iraq_Attack_Won_t_Affect_Pullout.html">their sacrifice</A> than they seem to receive.<br /><br />The Italian forces also brought along some air transport assets, seen at right flying over relics of Ancient Babylon (which happens to be the name of their operation). They are also bringing in attack helicopters and IFVs at the moment. Most Italian troops are deployed at Nassiryah as mentioned above in relation to the Romanians who are operating with them. They in fact took over control of the area from US forces in July 2003. Italy also contributes maritime patrol, mine clearing and a hospital ship to the overall operation. Along with the Italian troops are a number of civilian engineers working on projects such as railroad reconstruction and desalinisation plants.<br /><br /><A HREF="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21819">Here</A> is a nice article written by an American National Guard soldier returned from Iraq detailing his positive interactions with the Italians. On the other hand, no mention of the Italian participation in Iraq can be complete without the mention of a slightly less positive interaction (perhaps "schlemozzle" would be a better word) involving the journalist <A HREF="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/12/60II/main687555.shtml">Giuliana Sgrena</A>. To their credit, despite the hysterics at the time, there was no Spain-like folding of will amongst the Italian politicians. I thank them for their significant commitment. After watching enough Hogan's Heros episodes it's easy to form an impression of the Italian military as a bunch of bumbling fools but this expidition has put paid to that stereotype. There is an <A HREF="http://www.difesa.it/">Italian Defence Forces</A> web site for more information but I can't find an English version unfortunately.<br /></TD><TD><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Italy/Iraq/ziggurat1.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Italy/Iraq/ziggurat1_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=158 STYLE="margin-bottom: 10px"></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Italy/Iraq/vm90_palme_1024.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Italy/Iraq/vm90_palme_1024_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=180 STYLE="margin-bottom: 10px"></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Italy/Iraq/66%B0rgt_1024.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Italy/Iraq/66%B0rgt_1024_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=180 STYLE="margin-bottom: 10px"></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Italy/Iraq/VM90_bis_1024.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Italy/Iraq/VM90_bis_1024_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=180 STYLE="margin-bottom: 10px"></A><br /></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><br /><TR><TD VALIGN=TOP><H3>Japan</H3><br />I mentioned Japan recently in relation to the Australian soldiers who have been helping guard them as they perform their reconstruction work. Unsurprisingly, in addition to contributing engineers they have also sent medical personnel (pictured on the right). Projects their engineers have worked on (and in many cases, completed) include a medical center, water purification plants and schools.<br /><br />It's wonderful to see their commitment so echo my own sentiments:<br /><BLOCKQUOTE> On the basis of our experience, we believe that reconstruction of a peaceful Iraq is necessary not only for the peace and stability of the entire Middle East region and the international community but also for the peace and prosperity of Japan itself. In cooperation with other countries, therefore, we plan to provide active assistance to Iraq with Japan Self-Defense Forces troops and civilians as well as with financial aid so Iraq can rebuild itself as soon as possible and its people can live in a free and prosperous society without concerns about their present or their future.</BLOCKQUOTE><br />(More information about their commitment to Iraq can be found <A HREF="http://www.jda.go.jp/e/index_.htm">here</A>.)<br /><br />Many people are very cynical about the reasons for liberating Iraq (and in fact many would object to my use of the word "liberating") but I feel, regardless of what the reasons for the decision may or may not have been, the opportunity itself is unique and we owe it to the Iraqis and the world in general to make the most of it. Oops, this is Murdoc's blog and it's HIS opinion that you are entitled to, so I should avoid any further political discussion at this point. However I hope that he would agree with my sentiments. And of course I won't mention that if Iraq does turn out to be a bastion of freedom, security and stability in the otherwise trouble Middle East that would bode well for the security of western countries like the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia. Oops.<br /><br />Happily, our Japanese friends won't be <A HREF="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CAA1B321-D9C5-4CC3-BF64-BA86D76EA019.htm">leaving any time soon</A>.<br /></TD><TD><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Japan/Iraq/170607a.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Japan/Iraq/170607a_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=160></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Japan/Iraq/170607b.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Japan/Iraq/170607b_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=160></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Japan/Iraq/171024e1.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Japan/Iraq/171024e1_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=160></A><br /><A HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Japan/Iraq/171024j1.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/Japan/Iraq/171024j1_thumb.jpg" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH=240 HEIGHT=160></A><br /></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><B>To be continued...</B><br /><I>(I will attempt to write up every nation which has at least 250 total troops, engineers and/or medical personnel in Iraq. Therefore, stay tuned for parts 2 and 3).</I><br /><br /><HR><br /><br />Foot note: I was saddened by how difficult it was to find the information for this post. Every time I searched for keywords like "romanian" "soldiers" "iraq" or "italian" "soldiers" "iraq", most of the results I came up with had three types of titles: "Italy vows to pull troops out of Iraq", "Romania says it won't pull troops out of Iraq" or "Italian and Romanian soldiers killed in bombing attack". I don't know whether to roll my eyes or shake my head.<br /><br />—cross-posted at <A HREF="http://www.murdoconline.net">Murdoc Online</A>.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1150643451123809742006-06-18T08:10:00.000-07:002006-06-18T08:12:04.350-07:00Third Army in Iraq: Photos<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><TR><TD><H3>Earth-Shattering Ka-boom!</H3><A BORDER=0 HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_16_03.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_16_03_thumb.jpg" WIDTH=400 HEIGHT=324 HSPACE=16 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT></A><br /><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="text-align: justify">COB SPEICHER, Iraq (June 16, 2006) - Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment fire the M198 howitzer during an exercise at Contingency Operating Base Speicher, Iraq. Photo by Staff Sgt. Alfred Johnson.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><TR><TD><H3 ALIGN=RIGHT>Smiles All Around</H3><A BORDER=0 HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_16_02.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_16_02_thumb.jpg" WIDTH=400 HEIGHT=319 HSPACE=16 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=LEFT></A><br /><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="text-align: justify">SINJAR, Iraq (June 16, 2006) - Pfc. Chris Lunsford, from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, makes a friend while on patrol in Sinjar, Iraq. Photo by Staff Sgt. Jacob Bailey.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><TR><TD><H3>Three Colours: Iraq</H3><A BORDER=0 HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_15_01.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_15_01_thumb.jpg" WIDTH=400 HEIGHT=313 HSPACE=16 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT></A><br /><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="text-align: justify">RAMADI, Iraq (June 15, 2006) - While covering their movements with smoke, a Soldier attached to the I Marine Expeditionary Force signals a Marine to cross a street during a firefight with insurgents in Ramadi, Iraq. Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Samuel C. Peterson.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><TR><TD><H3 ALIGN=RIGHT>Black-Hawk Up</H3><A BORDER=0 HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_09_01.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_09_01_thumb.jpg" WIDTH=400 HEIGHT=266 HSPACE=16 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=LEFT></A><br /><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="text-align: justify">FORWARD OPERATING BASE SUMMERALL, Iraq (June 9, 2006) - An Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter descends to extract U.S. Army soldiers from an area west of Forward Operating Base Summerall, Iraq, during operations on June 9, 2006. The soldiers are attached to the 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. Photo by Spc. Charles W. Gill, U.S. Army.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><TR><TD><H3>Nary a Tomcat</H3><A BORDER=0 HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_20_01.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_20_01_thumb.jpg" WIDTH=400 HEIGHT=244 HSPACE=16 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=RIGHT></A><br /><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="text-align: justify">PERSIAN GULF (May 20, 2006) - The Military Sealift Command fast combat support ship USNS Rainier, center, provides fuel for the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, bottom, and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS McCampbell in the Persian Gulf May 20, 2006. All three ships are assigned to the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group, which is conducting maritime security operations in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 WIDTH=100%><TR><TD><H3 ALIGN=RIGHT>Steel Beasts</H3><A BORDER=0 HREF="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_18_01.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/mo/thirdarmycflcc_18_01_thumb.jpg" WIDTH=400 HEIGHT=267 HSPACE=16 VSPACE=10 ALIGN=LEFT></A><br /><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="text-align: justify">MUSHAHADA, Iraq (May 18, 2006) - Iraqi soldiers from 9th Mechanized Division pass through a highway checkpoint while en route to Camp Taji, Iraq Thursday May 18, 2006.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TABLE><br /><BR><br />All these great photos, and more, over at the <A HREF="http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/index.asp">US Third Army Coalition Forces Land Component Command</A> web-site.<br /><br />Note: Click on a photo to see it full at size.<br /><br />—cross-posted at <A HREF="http://www.murdoconline.net">Murdoc Online</A>.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1150527028340689792006-06-16T23:49:00.000-07:002006-06-16T23:53:13.040-07:00Multiunilaterial Force?While looking for some information about what our friends the Poles are up to I came across <A HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2020472">this</A> somewhat recent AP article which details what the troops from each of the 25 unilateral allies are up to in Iraq.<br /><br />While many of us are aware that Albanian, Armenian, Australian, Azerbaijanian, Bosnia-Herzegovinian, British, Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, El Salvadorian, Estonian, Georgian, Italian, Japanese, Kazakh, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Moldovian, Mongolian, Polish, Romainan, Slovakian and South Korean soldiers and engineers are on the ground, for me at least, it's a little hazy remembering where they are and what they're getting up to these days.<br /><br />If you too are wondering what your favorite sneaky foreign soldiers are doing sticking their noses into “America's War”, follow the link and read on. Although some of the contingents are quite small—I suppose they are symbolic in a way—every one contributes something towards the stability so sorely needed.<br /><br />—cross-posted at <A HREF="http://www.murdoconline.net">Murdoc Online</A>.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1150473766508963562006-06-16T09:01:00.000-07:002006-06-16T23:52:18.333-07:00Australian Troops in Iraq Mystery Assignment<I>Hello, this is my first post on Murdoc Online and it's not only an hono(u)r to be here, but somehow I am sharing it with Instapinch, a guy eminently more qualified than me to discuss military issues! More to come soon, however I would like to kick this off with a little story plugging my country-men and reminding the Americans that read this blog (yes, Canadians included) that you have some buddies all the way across the ocean to the West.</I><br /><br />Your allies down under, currently in Iraq, may soon find themselves a little more <A HREF="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19319536-29277,00.html">in the thick of things</A>.<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>AUSTRALIAN troops in southern Iraq were set to embark on a potentially far more dangerous mission assisting Iraqi troops and police to provide security.</BLOCKQUOTE><br /><br />Southern Iraq has been handled mostly by British troops so far and has its share of problems. Perhaps our soldiers will bring a slightly different style and help to calm some of the violence involving death squads and other assorted nastiness. Sadly, the Australian contingent in Iraq is rather small but hopefully is both a strong symbol of our support, and an effective force despite its size.<br /><br />So far our soldiers have been spending most of their time guarding Japanese engineers—a worthy task considering just how important reconstruction is in a counter-insurgency war. The Japanese constitution prevents them from sending combat troops overseas after their sailing expedition through the Pacific in the late '30s and early '40s, but I'm glad they could see fit to help out in this way. Japan is an important ally and trading partner both for the USA and Australia so their involvement generates political goodwill as well as concrete results (pun not intended).<br /><br /><B>Update:</B> While searching for more information on the Japanese contingent, I came across <A HREF="http://www.theforeigner-japan.com/archives/200405/column.htm">this</A> article with a couple of small, but nice photos. You gotta love the little girl holding that sign...<br /><br />—cross-posted at <A HREF="http://www.murdoconline.net/">Murdoc Online</A>Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1146857625416498962006-05-05T12:24:00.000-07:002006-05-05T12:58:29.853-07:00High Quality Movies - Back of the Napkin calculationsDiscussion of Blu-ray and HD-DVD got me thinking, and I made the following back-of-the-napkin calculations:<br /><br />A DVD9 disc holds roughly 9 billion bytes, 9×1000×1000×1000.<br /><br />If you dedicate an entire DVD9 disc to a movie (i.e. put all special features, fancy menus, etc. on another disc), and assuming your movie is 135 minutes (which is a pretty safe assumption - there are longer movies but they're rare), that means you can have an average bitrate of 9×1000×1000×1000×8÷60÷135 = 8888888 bits per second or nearly nine megabits.<br /><br />Now, let's say you have a 384kbit Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1/6.1/7.1 soundtrack, and a 192kbit stereo foreign language soundtrack (say French, or Spanish) and a 192kbit stereo Director's Commentary soundtrack. That leaves you with 8888888-384000-192000-192000 = 8120888 or just over 8 megabits for video.<br /><br />Now, regular "NTSC" DVDs contain 480p content (720x480). A higher quality HDTV standard is 720p (1280x720). 1280×720÷720÷480 = 2.66. Or in other words, 720p content is 2<sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub> times the size of 480p content, or 166% bigger.<br /><br />That means that the 8.12 megabits of video, if it were 720p content, would have an equivalent bitrate for 480p of 8.12÷2.66 = 3.05 megabits.<br /><br />Now, 3.05 megabits average is too low for high quality DVD-resolution MPEG2 video. However, it's not totally unreasonable for high quality MPEG4 or VP7 or similar advanced CODEC video at that resolution. The 8.12 megabit 720p video would be as high quality, or higher, than a 3mbit MPEG4/VP7 encoded DVD. I encode most of my DVDs to around 2mbit for acceptable quality. I think 3mbit would be virtually indistinguishable from the source material with these codecs.<br /><br />Please note that when I discuss equivalent quality, I'm not talking about the overall quality of the video itself - I'm talking about the distortions pixel level. Because 720p is a much higher resolution, you would get a much higher quality even if you lose a little more information at the pixel level. What the equivalent quality tells you, is whether you get the full improvement of the higher resolution of HDTV or only part of it. If 3mbit VP7 is equivalent in quality to 8mbit MPEG2 for 720x480, then using VP7 on 720p at this bitrate will mean you get the full benefit of HDTV. If it's slightly inferior, you still get a benefit, but not as much as you would from going to a higher capacity medium which allows you to have a higher bitrate, such as HD-DVD.<br /><br />My point? Using existing DVD physical storage and modern CODECs, it should be possible to store and play back high quality HDTV content. All that would be required on the player is a more powerful/advanced decoding chip for the newer CODECs. (At the same time, it might make sense to install newer audio codecs too, to squeeze some extra bits in. For example Ogg Vorbis audio for stereo soundtracks is very reasonable at or below 160kbit).<br /><br />I think this solution would make an excellent intermediate product between regular DVD video and Blu-ray/HD-DVD. The discs would cost no more than regular DVD discs, the players would not cost much more - they could use exactly the same components except for the decoding chip(s) and the DAC which drives the video outputs. Until Blu-ray and HD-DVD are ready, ubiquitous and cheap, why not?Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1146631928709604872006-05-02T21:50:00.000-07:002006-05-02T21:53:13.416-07:00Enough!Thief, commenting over at <A HREF="http://www.deanesmay.com">Dean's World</A>, <A HREF="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1146578720.shtml#66917">said</A>:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>Every time a genocide happens, the world cries, puts on sackcloth and ashes, and wails "Never again! Never Again! Never Again!" And it ALWAYS happens again. Why? Because the people crying "never again" are the same people who refuse to accept that the only way to stop a genocide is to march up to the people committing the genocide, stick the barrel of a gun in their face, and say "Enough!"<br /><br />Don't believe me? Ask a Kosovar. Or a Bosnian. Or a Cambodian. Or a Kurd. Or a Rwandan. Or a Jew. Or an Armenian. They will tell you that if human beings are so far gone that they are slaughtering whole peoples, the only way to bring the enterprise to a halt, short of allowing it to be taken to its end, is to threaten the genocidaires with the only language their crazed minds can understand: Force. If the world but had the will to meet every bullet of genocide with ten of justice, if the genocidaires had to live in the same fear of imminent death that their victims endure every say there would never be another genocide again.<br /><br />When scorn and mockery is replaced by will and resolve, there will not only be an end to genocide in Darfur, but an end to ALL genocides. But as long as we try to end genocide with meaningless words and vapid consciousness-raising, Darfur will continue. And history will hold our words, our cries, and our apologies cheap. We see, and our sin remains.<br /></BLOCKQUOTE>Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1140656235274345722006-02-22T16:56:00.000-08:002006-02-22T16:57:15.293-08:00Tantalising"Murdoc" has a refreshing interview with a female American soldier over <A HREF="http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003458.html">here</A>. You don't often hear answers that honest. I recommend it!Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1138873231563126012006-02-02T01:35:00.000-08:002006-02-06T21:01:55.586-08:00Which way do you want to be facing?This comment on <a href="http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/02/state-of-state-of-union.html">this post</a> really stuck out to me:<br /><blockquote>My Uncle for who I am named, Robert Francis Altavilla, 101st Airborne Cavalry 506 infantry Division C Company has remained on Pork Chop Hill, on the 38th parallel, in Korea to this very day; his remains were never found. But I'm certain he was facing north.</blockquote>I bet there are millions of Koreans who are thankful for Mr. Altavilla and the other Americans, Koreans, British, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, French and all the other nationalities who gave them the opportunity of freedom they have today. I salute him and all the others who put their lives on the line in the Korean peninsula.<br /><br />I can't help but feel the last sentence is a great metaphor. When engaged in a fight for freedom, I'd rather die facing north than south. There seem to be others who feel differently. Personally I don't really see the point in cowering in a hole and hoping the world is going to turn out OK.<br /><br /><br /><b>Update:</b><br /><blockquote>A lull fell over the area while the Chinese 47th Army was resupplied for its next objective -- Pork Chop. Back in the United States, the press lambasted the 7th Division for the loss of Old Baldy and described the division as weary, slipshod and demoralized. Unwittingly, the American press supplied the Chinese with a propaganda tool -- during the April and July fighting, 7th Division troops would hear those same caustic criticisms loosed at them from Chinese loudspeakers.</blockquote>American press supplying the enemy with propaganda - does that sound familiar? Have they no ability to consider the consequences of their actions? (from <a href="http://www.historynet.com/mh/blporkchophill/">this interesting article</a> about the battles for Pork Chop Hill).Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1138427901549675582006-01-27T21:57:00.000-08:002006-01-27T21:58:21.726-08:00Biting Social CommentaryApologies to <A HREF="http://www.flickr.com/photos/81928566@N00/73868394/">Sophia Pottish</A>.<br /><br /><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/monkey_google.gif">Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1137077149419433632006-01-12T06:43:00.000-08:002006-01-12T06:45:49.436-08:00Was Valerie Plame "undercover"?I've been doing some research, trying to find out whether she was or not. The results are not very conclusive. I'm pretty sure of the following:<br /><br /><ul><li>She worked as an analyst of sorts.</li><li>She went by her real name (well, maiden name, but she'd be doing that since before she was married).</li><li>She didn't tell people she worked for the CIA. She had a "cover job".</li><li>The journalist who first publically mentioned she worked for the CIA had no idea she was "undercover" at all (if she was). In fact, he called the CIA after he heard she might have been involved in sending Wilson to Niger, and the CIA confirmed she worked there. They asked him not to publish her name, but he did anyway. He later said, if they'd said it was important, he wouldn't have.</li><li>The journalist has/had a source at CIA, which told him she was not "undercover" - just an analyst.</li></ul><br />I found some of the interesting info <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200310%5CNAT20031001a.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valerie_Plame">here</a>.<br /><br />The whole thing seems silly to me. If the journalist could call the CIA, ask "Does Valerie Plame work for you", and get an affirmative answer, I don't think her name being mentioned in the press in connection with the CIA was really all that much of a big deal. Certainly not as big a deal as is being made out.<br /><br />Anyone have thoughts on this issue? Only sensible information, please.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1136893092980132102006-01-09T19:14:00.000-08:002006-01-10T04:49:13.436-08:00Puppy!My friends got a Corgi puppy. She's very cute:<br /><br /><IMG SRC="http://x256.org/~hb/puppy.jpg"><br /><br />I think that's about all I wanted to say.<br /><br /><B>Update:</B> More photos <a href="http://gallery.x256.com/pepper">here</a>.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1135154112871520702005-12-21T00:33:00.000-08:002005-12-21T00:35:12.890-08:00No News is Good News?I haven't heard much in the news about Iraq recently...<br /><br />...I guess that must mean that things over there are going pretty well then.<br /><br />Just like how Afghanistan dropped off the radar as soon as the situation became tenable.<br /><br />I suppose time will tell. The post-election seems like a bit of an anti-climax. Which is fantastic news!Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1134735035256838002005-12-16T04:02:00.000-08:002005-12-16T04:10:35.280-08:00Shifting GoalpostsI'm thoroughly sick of them.<br /><br />It's a form of sour grapes. Our coalition in Iraq has been making steady progress for the last couple of years. The problem is, every time some progress is made, the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism pipe up and say something along the lines of "well, you've achieved x, y and z, but it's still a mess and therefore a quagmire and a disaster and we might as well pull out now". They then go on to predict some kind of contrived gloom-and-doom situation where the Iraqis' new freedoms allow them to tear themselves apart.<br /><br />Of course, next time something new is achieved, they'll pipe in with "sure, you've achieved that, but..."<br /><br />This is reprehensible behaviour. Either tell us now what you expect to see before you'll stop bashing our efforts, or just shut up. This kind of tactic goes along with historical revisionism, subject-changing, and all sorts of low-intellect ways of pretending that you're winning a debate when you're really not. I don't mind being wrong, but so far before anyone has gotten to the point of showing me where my logical fallacies are, they're moving on to tarnishing my character or some other pet topic like Jewish conspiracy theories...<br /><br />I think I've come up with a good term for this effect. Let's called it the "glass is always half full". Would anyone care to pipe up and let us know just what you expect to happen before you'll accept the situation is heading in the right direction? It would be awfully nice of you. Not that I expect knowing that it would change anyone's plans. But at least it would give us some kind of an idea whether you have a real problem with the situation or merely want to appear to be superior without doing any heavy thinking.<br /><br />Personally I think the Iraqis are doing great. 95% of them are good people, and proud, as they should be. I think they will get what they deserve in a historically short time frame - that is, a moderately peaceful and stable society within a few years. Certainly, their neighbours will have something to envy.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1133941789224491592005-12-06T23:43:00.000-08:002005-12-07T00:01:11.626-08:00OK, Angry NowI saw a report on the TV news just now of a passenger plane (military transport, supposedly) which crashed into an apartment block.<br /><br />It's pretty sad, lots of people were killed, none of them deserved to be in an accident like that.<br /><br />Then, at the end of the report, the woman doing the voiceover said something to the effect of "This is not an isolated incident... many of Iran's military transports are ancient and are involved in many accidents. The age of the fleet is because America refuses to allow new, Western aircraft to be sold to Iran."<br /><br />OK, firstly, that's not why this plane crashed, and it's pretty low to blame America for an Iranian plane crash. There are many old planes still flying all over the world, with proper maintenance they can last a long time. Some of them are DC-3s (C-47s) from the 1940s, still in commercial use!<br /><br />Secondly, Iran just bought <b>1 billion dollars</b> worth of Surface-to-air missile systems from Russia. They couldn't afford to buy a few of the cheap, effective Russian transport planes to replace the oldest in their fleet, in order to prevent accidents like this one happening again?<br /><br />I'm sure Russia and France would both love to sell Iran some new planes. I doubt America can do more than block the sale of Boeing aircraft, which are not the only option out there. While they're at it, maybe they could spend less money on building nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel and spend it instead on aircraft maintenance.<br /><br />Thirdly, Iran's policy of "Death to America" is probably at least partially responsible for their poor trade relations.<br /><br />This is a most disgusting episode of reporting. I feel very sorry for the people affected by this accident, and I wish we could fix up their planes, but until Iran's leaders are ready to become mature and denounce their policies of terror and destruction, we're not going to be going out of our way to sell them military technology.<br /><br />The Anti-American sentiments in our media are getting almost insidious as the Nazi's Anti-Jew sentiments. Everything that goes wrong is blamed on them! How am I the only person noticing this?<br /><br />As I said... Angry Now.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1133785580292217612005-12-05T04:21:00.000-08:002005-12-05T22:01:21.100-08:00Storm CloudsDark storm clouds are gathering on the horizon, and so far the S. S. Iran is steaming full speed ahead into the maelstrom.<br /><br />This could get bad. Very bad. Iran has publically called for the destruction of Israel and the United States. Israel has said they will not tolerate a nuclear armed Iran (for obvious reasons). Israel is estimated to possess between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads. Presumably at least some of those are mounted on their short- and medium-range missiles, many if not all of which can reach Iran. The rest would probably be in the form of aerial bombs.<br /><br />Both Israel and now El Bardei have said that Iran is mere months away from a nuclear weapon. Israel has said they will wait for diplomacy to take its course, but if it can't solve the problem before it's too late (and I seriously doubt it can, the way Iran is behaving) then they will take matters into their own hands.<br /><br />How it pans out depends on two things - how well they time it and whether the US get involved. Assuming they strike before the first weapon is completed, they will have to mount a campaign of air strikes, probably lasting for at least a whole night, possibly several days. It will be much easier and more effective if the US helps.<br /><br />If the US helps (and I think they must) there will be an incredibly intense night of strikes, knocking out every possibly nuclear facility in Iran. If I were them, I'd follow them up with an armoured dash from two directions (Iraq and Afghanistan) to all the hardest targets - underground facilities, etc. - ensure their destruction and get out.<br /><br />I don't see any way that this situation can get anything but bad. I hope Hamidreza, a commenter here and at Fourth Rail/ThreatsWatch, will be OK. I'm not sure if (s)he currently lives in Iran or not. For that matter, I hope that all the Iranian citizens come out of this OK. But if their leaders continue on their current course unthinkingly, I'm afraid for their safety.<br /><br /><B>UPDATE</B>: It now seems as if <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article331219.ece">El Bardei's comments</a> have been miscontrued; he said the would have a bomb within months <I>of resuming production</I>. Still, it seems as if a showdown is looming. It would be folly for Israel and the US to wait until Iran probably has produced at least one bomb before taking strong action (diplomatically or otherwise).Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1133778925060581362005-12-05T02:25:00.000-08:002005-12-05T02:35:29.586-08:00Cope India 2005I only have time for a quick post, so here's a link:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.php">USAF vs. Indian Air Force -- Cope India 2005</a><br /><br />The hype surrounding this event (as well as Cope India 2004) bother me. Here's what we know:<br /><br />* Indian aircraft (Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, upgraded MiG-21s and MiG-27s) are good, although the -21 and -27 are a bit short-legged.<br />* Indian pilots are reportedly excellent.<br />* India and the USAF get a lot out of these exercises.<br /><br />Both years, I've heard reports that the USAF were "surprised" and "thorougly beaten", and that US technology and piloting skills are inferior and slipping.<br /><br />What isn't always so obvious is that these exercises consist of many different engagements between each side. In fact, sometimes Indian and USAF pilots will team up against another (Indian, USAF or Indian/USAF) threat, to see how they can work together. Each mission has a different combination of airplanes, different goals and different rules of engagement.<br /><br />In Cope 2004, the controversy was that India won 90%+ of the engagements. Well, I don't have all the information, so I can't really say - but I bet most of them were set up to be advantageous to their side.<br /><br />For example, reportedly at Cope India 2005, the USAF didn't simulate the use of AIM-120 AMRAAMs at all. Anyone with a good familiarity with American jet aircraft knows just how vital a tool this weapon is. I can't imagine going into (simulated) air combat without it - it just wouldn't be the same. AIM-7 Sparrows are difficult to use effectively, prone to failure and jamming, and AIM-9 Sidewinders are very short range. The AIM-120 is the most versatile AAM the US aircraft carry these days. To judge the competence of the USAF by the results of combats which rule out the use of their most important weapon seems foolish to me.<br /><br />I don't know if India simulated the use of the similar R-77 (AA-12) - probably not. But either way, this increases the change of the aircraft getting into close-range dogfights, where any potential electronics advantage of the US aircraft is much diminished.<br /><br />Additionally, many of the exercises might pit, say, 4 F-15s again 4 SU-30MKIs and 8 MiG-21s. Is it any surprise that the Indian side tends to win more often than not?<br /><br />Now, as I stated right at the beginning, the Russian/Soviet aircraft the IAF fly are good planes, and their pilots are reportedly excellent. Therefore, I'm not trying to impinge upon the quality of either. Rather, I think we need all the information before we can judge what the outcome of these exercises means.<br /><br />All I'm certain of is that both participants gained valuable knowledge and experience!Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1132790912953930542005-11-23T16:01:00.000-08:002005-11-23T16:08:32.963-08:00Intellectual DishonestyI think I've finally done it. I no longer identify with the left side of politics any more.<br /><br />Not that I ever really did, but in the past it was the most natural fit for me. Not any more.<br /><br />I am not the smartest person in the world, nor am I always right. But at least I don't frequently state things I know to be untrue in order to smear someone whom I don't particularly like.<br /><br />I don't like George Bush or Dick Cheney very much. I don't particularly like John Howard either, although I've started to think he's not all that bad. But I can not abide those who will do anything, not only including but <span style="font-weight: bold;">especially</span> lying and slandering in order to bring down their political opponents.<br /><br />Oh sure, it's politics, some people will say. Well, that may be the case while you keep your smears to the politicians. But when the smear extends to fully half the population, that's just too much. Why am I vilified for defending someone who I may not like, but who happens to be correct? Why do people on the left think the truth doesn't matter any more - while at the same time raising a stink when they claim someone they oppose has lied?<br /><br />It's just pathetic. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about Bush & Co. Why stoop to making stuff up?<br /><br />I've had enough. The ignorance and the lies have to stop. Now that I have the choice between people I don't agree with, but who at least appear to be somewhat honest, and those who are straight-out liars, I'm going to choose the former. At least there is honor.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1132766722201855172005-11-23T09:23:00.000-08:002005-11-23T09:25:22.210-08:00Please, no more reality shows, I'll tell you what you want to know!Here's a <a href="http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19401/">good, and surprisingly civil discussion about torture</a>. Personally, I'm of the opinion we need to decide what we can all agree is torture and come up with a good definition and outlaw it (I'm pretty sure it already is, but let's make it clear). It should also be thoroughly enforced. Those things we can't agree on could be dealt with immediately afterwards with debate, and perhaps allowed under explicit circumstances.<br /><br />I'm a fan of clear laws, we might as well spell this one out.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1132614090302350692005-11-21T14:53:00.000-08:002005-11-21T20:33:50.573-08:00Inside Their MindsHamidreza has asked me "...what is your opinion about western leftists taking the side of such repressive and unsavory folks like Zarqawi and Baathists and Sadr in Iraq. What makes them identify with these unsavory characters? "<br /><br />I think I'm in a fairly good position to answer this since I am a westerner (not literally, but in the sense which we use the word), I live in a fairly leftward leaning country and I have voted for the left-most major party in politics here a number of times.<br /><br />There are a number of reasons, but I believe that the main answer to this question is: because it's easy, because they're full of themselves and because they've lost their perspective on the American people and people in general.<br /><br />Most of us in western countries (and in others besides) want to be "good". We've been taught that certain things are bad - hurting people, killing people, coercing people. If we do any of these things we'll almost certainly be punished for it, and we are lucky that they are relatively uncommon in our societies due to the culture we have developed and the policing and judicial systems we have.<br /><br />We also want to be part of a larger entity, and we want that entity to behave in the manner we believe is consistent with our own behaviour. So, essentially, we want our country and our fellow citizens to behave in what we believe is a moral manner. If murdering another person is indefensible, why isn't being part of a country which sends overseas its armed forces which then proceed to kill people, also not indefensible?<br /><br />To believe that engaging in or even instigating a war could be moral requires a lot of mental effort. If you say to yourself "we should never go to war", that's the end of that. However, if you say to yourself "we should never go to war, except..." then try to answer the question of "when it is permissible, and what is permissible", that is very difficult and involves complex analysis of local and domestic issues, human rights, an understanding of the military, and various other topics on which ordinary people are typically not well versed. Gun control and other such logic also causes problems here. If guns are inherently bad, then the military is bad, and therefore anything the military does is bad. Most people who believe such things don't have any problem with police carrying guns, though.<br /><br />There is plenty of information available about what makes for a just war, the history of warfare and nations - everything that we need to create an informed opinion of how the events of today compare to the events of the past, in order for us to avoid making old mistakes over again. I'm afraid most people are not sufficiently aware of this type of information. They're so naive, they often believe what is fed to them without questioning it. I think this is a failing of our education system. We've abandoned reasoned thinking for regurgitation of what we have been taught, and when these people leave high school or college, they continue to behave as if what they are seeing and hearing is the scientific truth which should be believed. Without a healthy amount of skepticism, how is anyone to make sense of what the media presents to us daily? But it's easier to just read it, assume it's true, and move along than it is to question and try to build a logical framework for the barrage of information we are subjected to, within which some of it fits and some doesn't.<br /><br />In short, grand moral questions are not something that most people want to spend their time thinking about - even if they want to appear as if they do. They tend to fall back upon much simpler rules - those same rules which govern our society. The problem is, global morality is a lot more complex than societal morality, because the world does not have the same police or judicial constructs or agreed-upon laws to govern it.<br /><br />Interestingly, the basic desire to be good cited here does not seem to translate into universal compassion for other people. Otherwise how can these same people who claim war is wrong justify bombers who target innocent people and otherwise behave abominably, and how can they fail to consider the wellbeing and freedoms of the people who would be most radically be affected by our retreat from the current conflicts? Of course, not all of them do, but there certainly are examples of this type of behaviour. I believe their ego is clouding their judgment - they don't realize that even if a given thing is wrong, it is not necessarily true that every possible way to oppose it is right. Then again, many of these people seem to be more obsessed with what is "legal" than what is "right", which should be a hint as to how much they actually care about the victims.<br /><br /><hr /><br />Another important reason is hatred of America and Americans. And yes, I believe a lot of Americans harbour these feelings too. It's an extreme form of cynicism - the belief that foreigners, or people from other states, are somehow abnormal compared to the people that you associate with. I simply can't correlate the Average American that I have met with those who seem to occupy the minds of people who believe that Americans are capable of such evil.<br /><br />Many people here are perfectly willing to believe that American soldiers will kill civilians for fun, torture people without asking any questions, and generally behave in a manner which they themselves would never consider behaving. They think people who join the armed services are poor and dumb, and they only do it for the benefits. This seems to me to be a stark contrast with the US military members I converse with. They seem to have on average, if nothing else, an above-normal amount of common sense.<br /><br />Of course, we know that monsters such as many believe make up the bulk of the US military do exist. They are the kind of people who explode a bomb purposefully in the middle of a crowd of church-goers or a group of children. I am under no illusions that there are no such people in our society, in our governments or in our military. However I believe these kind of people to be aberrations and the rest of us would not tolerate their behaviour if we saw it. That includes the members of the US armed forces. So, while abuses and criminal behaviour (like at Abu Ghraib) do happen, they're the exception, not the rule. Why should I believe these people, who live normal lives at home, and seem to be determined to serve their fellow citizens in any way possible, are any better or worse a group of people than any other?<br /><br /><hr /><br />In conclusion, I believe it is the combination of intellectual laziness, naivete, an inflated sense of self-worth and the willingness to believe the worst of the average American which forms the seed of these beliefs. They are solidified and perpetuated by GroupThink. These beliefs allow the holders to feel morally superior without having to do any of the difficult philosophising which is required to have a truly strong set of morals. It ignores the lessons of history - but I believe the "new left" is an organization based upon appealing to the ignorant. Where else would you find a subset of people who believe Communism can work, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and who ignore the horrors that were inflicted upon the poor subjects of those experiments?<br /><br />This is not to suggest that the "right" are somehow magically perfect - far from it - and yes, I think they do suffer from GroupThink at times too. However, despite disagreeing with many on the right on many issues, I find that they at least have a historical perspective. After all, as I paraphrased earlier, "Those who can not remember the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them."<br /><br />Hamidreza, I hope this answers your question in a clear enough manner. I'm afraid I've used some fairly complex sentences, and this is very long, but I've found this hard to explain otherwise.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1132434896778645032005-11-19T13:07:00.000-08:002005-11-21T20:48:32.946-08:00How Do We Know When We've Won?A commenter on a post at the <a href="http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/11/operation_steel_3.php">Fourth Rail</a> asked some interesting questions about something I said which I thought I would post here.<br /><br />His question was:<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">In all seriousness, what is YOUR definition of winning? When will you think we've won, what is your metric for victory in Iraq?<br /></blockquote><br />He was suggesting that by his own definition, we've already won and should leave. I think that would be a mistake at this point and here is why:<br /><br /><p>I don't know for sure when we will have "won", but with around 100 attacks per day I'm pretty sure we're not there yet. That's not a good enough security situation yet. If we leave now, will it get better or worse? I'm not sure, which is why I'm uncomfortable saying "we've won" yet and leaving.</p>I'd say, at the point we're pretty confident that the security will continue to improve until Iraqis can basically get on with their every-day lives and reconstruction can proceed without too many problems then we can stop worrying and the Iraqis can probably handle themselves. The situation does seem to be heading in that direction but I think it will be a while yet. I suspect over the next 6-18 months Anbar will get a lot better. That will leave Baghdad and one other province which are serious problems... so, I think, there are still offensives required yet. (I read an interview where a Marine office said he thinks Fallujah will be much better in 6 months too).<br /><br /><p>Regardless of when is the right time to leave, which nobody really knows, I'm pretty sure it's not yet. What's the point of getting out, if within the next few years a new Saddam might come along and have us back in the same situation? It would just be exchanging the old problem for a new one, with all the loss of life for nothing.</p> I could be wrong... maybe if we left now they would be OK.. but considering about half the desired forces aren't up to scratch yet, and considering that every time we even talk about getting out or backing down it emboldens the terrorists, I don't think so.<br /><br /><hr /><br />I think asking "how do we know when we've won?" is a much more important question than "how quickly can we get out?" <p>The former is a question which needs to be asked in order to properly strategise. The latter is only relevant if you consider surrender to be a viable option. Since, if you ask the latter without asking the former, you're acknowledging that you're willing to leave without knowing whether you've achieved your goals yet - which is basically just giving up and going home.</p> In a related point, asking "what exactly are we trying to achieve" is useful too. Given the "Global War on Terror" label, I think the goal would be "do whatever is necessary to defeat terrorists and remove the causes for terrorism", but how to achieve that is extremely complex and also not very clear-cut. I DO believe that if we can make Iraq into a country that any of us would be proud to live in, we've created some of the pre-conditions which could be very useful for satisfying those goals.<br /><br /><hr /><br />Quantifying success requires some metrics. This is a very basic analysis and likely not accurate, but I think it's a worthwhile thought experiment.<br /><p>Let's say for the sake of argument that due to experience, training and equipment the average coalition soldier is about twice as effective as the average trained Iraqi soldier at the moment. (This may change over time, but let's suppose it's true for now, I don't think it's too far off). Of course the Iraqis have big advantages too because they're locals...</p> <p>There are currently ~160k coalition troops in Iraq and 211k Iraqi police/soldiers. (I see that only about 32k are supposed to be level 1/2 but I seem to remember thinking there were more than that). Anyway, other reports suggest that about 1/3 to 1/2 the Iraqi troops are level 1 or level 2. So, that gives us 160k*2 + 211k/2 = a 425k equivalent soldier force.</p> <p>The stated goal for total ISF is 270-350k. So right now effectively there is an overall more capable forces there right now than there will be when we leave, even with fully trained Iraqi forces. As it is, operations are being successful right now (if Bill and others are correct), but there isn't much extra troop capacity (there is a bit for the elections).</p>So, until the security situation is improving (or stable and adequately good) WHILE the troop level can be brought down to the equivalent of 270-350k level, including the mix of coalition and Iraqi forces, the coalition presence will be necessary. When all the current Iraqi forces reach level 1 or level 2 readiness, that will mean that under the equivalent of the current security situation, (425-270)/2 = 77.5k coalition troops will be required. If the security situation improves, probably less. This is the number of troops I think we'll be seeing about 18 months from now.<br /><br /><hr /><br />The other commenter, "Desert Rat", then asked me:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>Whom are the 100 attacks aimed at each day?<br />If at our troops, the attacks are not worthy of the name, we lose so few troops to them. If they are against Iraqis, that is something else, not a military threat, but a Police one.</i></blockquote> <p><br /></p><p>They're aimed mostly at US troops I think (based upon interviews I have read with soldiers). I agree, they're pathetically ineffective, but apparently still effective enough to upset a large portion of the American populace. Compared to other wars, the casualties are low, but every soldier killed or maimed is sad and I wish it could be avoided.</p>Not many attacks are aimed at Iraqis but those which are tend to be more effective since they have less armour (and the ones at civilians even worse).<p><br /></p>Then he states:<br /><br /><p></p><blockquote><i>President Talabani believes that the conflict is an Iraqi Civil War. Baathists vs Federalists. Perhaps the Jordanian, Mr Z, sees it differently, as a Mohammedan Civil War, Sunni vs Shia.<br />For US our Goals are pronounced in the Authorization. The Goals are quite secular and Security related. They have been achieved. Iraq, as a Nation State, no longer poses a threat to US.<br /></i></blockquote> <p><br /></p><p>Since most of the attacks seem only to be aimed at creating carnage and/or headlines I would have trouble tagging it as a civil war. Typically engagements in a civil war would be towards some kind of goal of victory, and I don't believe "chaos" would be a valid goal. But perhaps some people think it would, and out of the chaos they could assert themselves. They know better than I do, I guess.</p> <p>Regardless of how we call it, I don't believe that Iraq as it is now "poses no threat to the US". I've already touched on why, but I'll elaborate.</p> <p>Number one, if we leave now and it does break out into a full civil war, Iraq will probably end up under a dictator again. That may not be an immediate threat but I promise you if that happens, not only will terrorism globally end up worse than it otherwise would, but this new dictator would probably be a direct threat to the US in the medium turn (~20 years). I don't think any of us want that, so we should be sure before anyone leaves that's not going to happen.</p> <p>Number two, I believe a large part of the reason why terrorism is on the rise is the dysfunction of the Middle East. It is a cultural, not racial or religious problem (although I don't think the religious aspects help one bit). Great Arab leaders are far and few between, and Great Arab Countries are practically non-existent. You can blame this on the British Colonial Rule of the past but I don't think it's the true cause. However, the colonial rule left a bunch of countries which didn't really understand how to govern themselves.</p> <p>Helping the Iraqis create a well-governed and prosperous nation in the middle-east should prove a moderating influence in several aspects. It should help restore Arab pride and show them that there's nothing about their situation which means they can't have what we have if only they try to achieve it. I believe it will do a lot to heal the rifts which are responsible for the level of terrorism today. I'm sure it won't stop it altogether but it's a step along the way. I certainly don't see us stopping terrorists without doing something about the malaise which infects the middle east, and I don't see that going away with Iraq in turmoil, even with Saddam gone.</p>I could go on for a while, but <a href="http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml">Den Beste</a> has already written a much more in-depth analysis than myself, which I think is excellent, so if you're interested I suggest that you read it. <a href="http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/strategic-overview-annotating-and.html">Tigerhawk</a> posted an updated version, but I prefer Den Beste's because of its terseness (making it easier to read).<br /><br />In short, I think Iraq's stability is more closely tied in the long term to America's safety than Desert Rat suggests. He COULD be right - if we leave now maybe they'll be OK. But I don't like to take risks. I'd rather stay and make sure.<br /><br /><hr /><br />"Desert Rat" argues that "staying the course" is a poor strategy. "Staying the course" does not necessarily imply "... and keep doing things exactly the way we have been so far". In fact I would argue the strategy in Iraq has been evolving significantly over the last few years. To claim there's a single rigid strategy at work seems odd to me. You certainly can argue that some changes to the current evolution of the strategy would be a good idea. However, it seems to me right now significant progress is being made so at least for the next few months, I wouldn't make any significant military changes. I WOULD make some pretty dramatic changes to speed up the reconstruction efforts.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1132303919800214142005-11-18T00:44:00.000-08:002005-11-21T20:49:49.970-08:00Forfty percent of all people know that....<a href="http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F09.html">...[one] can come up with statistics to prove anything.</a> (quoth my hero, Homer Simpson).<br /><br />I'm an avid consumer of statistics on the situation in Iraq. Partly this is because I find it difficult to get a handle on what's happening over there with the lack of good information. People like <a href="http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/">Michael Yon</a> and <a href="http://billroggio.com/">Bill Roggio</a> help, but don't tell the whole picture. One good source of statistics is the <a href="http://www.brookings.org/iraqindex">Brookings Institute Iraq Index</a>.<br /><br />Of course, the problem with statistics is how you interpret them. It seems possible for different people to interpret the same set of statistics to come to different conclusions (possibly supporting their preconceived notions).<br /><br />Personally, my take on the situation is positive. Not all the statistics are positive, but some are, and I mix in my reading about events over there to make the full picture.<br /><br />Currently, the best trends are those which show that Iraqi civilian and soldier/police deaths are dropping off rapidly, as are car bombs and such. The bad news is that Coalition deaths and injuries don't seem to be dropping off much, and reconstruction of infrastructure like electricity is not advancing as well as we would like. However, I believe there is a good reason for the trend in coalition casualties, which supports my belief that progress is being made, slowly but steadily.<br /><br />Basically, what I see happening is that the fighting from the point of view of the coalition and IAF is shifting from being a defensive battle to being a more and more offensive one. A lot of deaths and injuries are currently occurring in the Anbar province - the sector in which the terrorists and insurgents are currently being targeted relentlessly. Troops fighting offensively are naturally at a disadvantage and can expect to be hurt more often.<br /><br />In short, when areas become safer and therefore coalition casualties drop, that's an indication that it's time to move some troops into more dangerous areas, as they are no longer needed where they are. This creates a rise in casualties. Essentially, if the battles are being fought intelligently and troops are being distributed properly, coalition casualties should be essentially flat. And for all statistical intents and purposes, they are.<br /><br /><hr /><br />I don't believe the <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84508/andrew-f-krepinevich-jr/how-to-win-in-iraq.html">"oil spot strategy"</a> is 100% correct, but I do believe that it is in part what is happening here. As areas are cleared of enemies, the number of peaceful areas (or relatively peaceful, depending) in Iraq goes up. The remaining enemies are squeezed into a smaller space. Meanwhile, those areas which are not being offensively targeted are instead being patrolled enough to at least prevent the situation from getting worse, especially with the influx of fighters from other regions. Ultimately, I believe their last stand will be Baghdad. Baghdad has been the most consistently violent place in Iraq, despite the large security force presence.<br /><br />There are several obvious reasons for this - it's where the journalists are, it has the highest concentration of targets, it has the most mixed and varied population, it's easier to hide in a big city and one has to be careful mounting large scale military operations in such a densely populated area.<br /><br />So, as other provinces become more normal, Baghdad will probably stay bad. Operations will eliminate some of the rotten eggs there, but others forced out of outlying areas will probably move in to take their place. The problem for them will be that their lines of supply will be cut. No new foreign fighters, no new weapons... it will be a sort of siege-from-within which will force them into submission. Of course, weapons are not hard to come by in Iraq - it was estimated they had <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-06.htm">412 012 tons</a> before the war and most of that fell into the wrong hands. But caches are being constantly discovered and destroyed and without outside supply they will eventually run out.<br /><br />I think we really are seeing a move in this direction. Some people say "well, if we're winning, we should be able to pull our troops out now and let the Iraqis take over, right?" Well, it's not quite that easy. What I see happening over the next 6-12 months is that as more and more Iraqi police and soldiers take over <span style="font-weight: bold;">defensive</span> tasks, coalition troops will go more and more on the <span style="font-weight: bold;">offensive</span>. We're already seeing it now, it will happen even more soon. When this happens to the extent that all the offensives which are desired are already in progress, coalition troops will start coming home. I suspect, though, that probably about 25% of the number there now (say, 30-40 thousand) will be staying for a while. There are still a lot of internal and external threats that will need to be dealt with. We shall see - to a large extent it will be up to the Iraqi government to decide. I don't think the 25% level will be reached until at least 2-3 years from now.<br /><br /><hr /><br />I suspect if we cut and run now, two things would happen. Firstly, it would so embolden the terrorists that they would go on a major offensive. Secondly, the Iraqi security forces would be forced on the back foot, because we would no longer be placing pressure on the terrorists and insurgents by going after them. They will be forced to become purely defensive, and instead of the pockets of unrest shrinking, they will grow. That will probably continue until much of the country (probably minus the Kurds) are engaged in a civil war. We don't want that. We don't have to stick around much longer before we can effectively break the back of the terrorist network and allow the Iraqi forces to <span style="font-weight: bold;">gracefully</span> transition into a defensive posture, one where the situation is improving rather than degrading.<br /><br />Of course, we hope the December elections will also help calm things down. It should provide Iraq with a fully representative government. There is evidence that terrorist and insurgent groups are splintering and disagreeing too. It's likely that with the representative government, if more reconstruction progress can be made (and despite some problems, progress is being made) a lot of people will realize they're better off and things are only going to get better over time, and some will stop their bickering and get back on with their lives.<br /><br />So, when exactly will troops start pulling out? I'd say it will be when there are obvious and permanent drops in coalition casualties. This will be indicative of the pace of operations dropping. To pull troops back now would be to reduce the pace of the offensives, which would only draw them out, and require a longer presence. Why would we want that? Better to stay there until some of the coalition troops are just not needed any more, so they won't be making the job of their buddies who stay behind harder when they leave.<br /><br />At least, that's my hope. I think we have passed the point of inflexion recently and we will see the rate of good news climb from now on. It is in everyone's interest (other than terrorists) to do this right.<br /><br />Then we only have to worry about Syria, Iran, North Korea.... *sigh*Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1132049064181858652005-11-15T01:57:00.000-08:002005-11-21T20:51:22.100-08:00Saddam had no NBC weapons......except for Sarin gas, Mustard gas and at least two mobile Biological Weapon production laboratories (designed to circumvent UN inspection).<br /><br />Here are pictures and information on the two BW labs:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/">http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/</a><br /><a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777</a><br /><br />There's also plenty of evidence that NBC weapons and weapon-related research and development activities were hastily destroyed and/or hidden in the run-up to the invasion. Still, these labs are the most damning of the evidence found.<br /><br />Here's some information on the Sarin gas shell found and why it was probably made after the first Gulf War (i.e. in violation of the ceasefire agreement):<br /><br /><a href="http://www.overpressure.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.html#000819">http://www.overpressure.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.html#000819</a><br /><br />Here's info on the Mustard Gas. It probably WAS left over from the first Gulf War. It's still a chemical weapon floating around in Iraq though:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40754">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40754</a><br /><br />He had plenty of uranium too, including some which was moderately enriched. Not enough to make a bomb, but part of the way there, and he also had hidden the equipment necessary to finish the bomb-making process. Still, most of this was probably known from the inspection days. Supposedly the IAEA put it under a "seal". I guess he was waiting for the inspectors to go away before he resumed the production of nuclear weapons:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml</a><br /><br />This is all stuff that for whatever reason wasn't destroyed or hidden prior to or during the invasion. I wonder what they really had? Maybe some of it was hidden in a friendly neighbouring country like <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html">Syria</a>?<br /><br />I found all these easily on google.<br /><br />Now, repeat after me...<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Saddam had no WMD...</span><br /><br />Once again, with feeling!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update: </span> <a href="http://gaypatriot.net/2005/11/19/un-confirms-saddam-smuggled-wmd-out-of-iraq-in-2003">this article</a> by "Gay Patriot" links to a UN report detailing the evidence which shows that much of Iraq's NBC weapon and missile components were smuggled out of Iraq before and during the invasion.Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18952995.post-1131977467327910592005-11-14T06:03:00.000-08:002005-11-21T20:52:15.326-08:00How to Lose an ArgumentThere's some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law">common wisdom on Usenet</a> which goes like this:<br /><br /><blockquote>As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.<br /></blockquote><br />Well, if that's the case, I've lost this argument before I started it.<br /><br />I was watching a documentary on ABC TV about Iran, and they were showing thousands of Iranians in a mosque or shrine. This was the day after the "Koran Flushing" allegations, which turned out to be false. These thousands of Iranians were shouting "Death to America!".<br /><br />You know what it reminded me of? One of Hitler's parades.<br /><br />It doesn't help that the President of Iran recently vowed to kill all the Jews (and America while he was at it).<br /><br />Now, I have a little rule I live by, which goes something like this:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Never declare war on, or make public your intent to eradicate, someone who owns enough nuclear weapons to turn your country into rubble, then turn the rubble into dust, then turn the dust into glass, then break the glass, then bounce the pieces around for a while, and still retain most of their weapons.</span><br /><br />Apparently the President of Iran hasn't heard my little rule. He also must not know what happened to Hitler.<br /><br />I'm afraid of what's going to happen. I'm afraid Iran is going to go crazy and we're going to have WWII all over again, except this time with suicide bombers and nuclear threats and it's going to be horrible. Note to Iran: please save yourself destruction, get off your high horse, and learn to live in the 21st century.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com0