Posted 12:25 PM by Robert

Heavyweights

The Wall Street Journal editorial page (Holman W. Jenkins Jr., presiding) v. Kausfiles - and this time it's serious.

Mr. Jenkins writes:

Typically off-base was one media echo that accused the Rumsfeld Pentagon of intentionally skimping on troops "to prove a point about light forces and therefore enable far more aggressive and sweeping American military actions around the world." Quite the reverse, his Iraqi success may finally give Mr. Rumsfeld the clout to carry out a transformation that has been stymied so far. Less happily, his Iraqi success will also make it that much more necessary.

That one media echo, of course, was Kausfiles - and the fact that a simple google search turns up the referent confirms how minimal was the courtesy shown by omitting Kausfiles' name. Yes, this time it's serious, but, as always the only thing worse than being talked about is ... It's important to keep in mind that Kausfiles is not accusing Secretary Rumsfeld of incompetence here: The important question isn't whether he's incompetently managed the war (he hasn't), or whether he's too mean to generals (Keller's lesson!), but whether he's proved this point.

The "transformation" that Messrs. Jenkins and Rumsfeld are urging is described by the Secretary as based on six principles, in his own words:

Before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington we had decided that to keep the peace and defend freedom in the 21st century our defense strategy and force structure must be focused on achieving six transformational goals: First, to protect the U.S. homeland and our bases overseas. Second, to project and sustain power in distant theaters. Third, to deny our enemies sanctuary, making sure they know that no corner of the world is remote enough, no mountain high enough, no cave or bunker deep enough, no SUV fast enough to protect them from our reach. Fourth, to protect our information networks from attack. Fifth, to use information technology to link up different kinds of U.S. forces so that they can in fact fight jointly. And sixth, to maintain unhindered access to space and protect our space capabilities from enemy attack..... The notion that we could transform while cutting the defense budget over the past decade was seductive, but false. Of course, while transformation requires building new capabilities and expanding our arsenal, it also means reducing stocks of weapons that are no longer necessary for the defense of our country.

Mr. Rumsfeld has been struggling to increase the defense budget and to change both the way that money is spent on weapons and how the military (including its presumptions and strategies) is structured. To a question posed by Fortune magazine last year about how much defense spending is enough, Mr. Rumsfeld answered, "We can afford to spend on national defense any absolute amount of dollars and any percentage of GDP that is necessary to have a reasonably stable, reasonably peaceful world, because without that we do not have the opportunity to enjoy our freedoms." But Messrs. Jenkins, Rmsfeld and others have argued that many current defense appropriations are unwise - and that they are being mostly treated as Congressional pork. Mr. Rumsfeld's description of what would be required to "transform" the military in the item linked above is interesting. It is also obvious that anything of the scale he is proposing would provoke a huge uproar in the Pentagon, the retired officers, the Congress and the media - regardless of whether he is right or ultimately prevails.

Posted 11:28 AM by Robert

TRAVEL ADVISORY/ France/ by President Bush

A friend forwards the following TRAVEL ADVISORY/ France/ by President Bush, ... of which I know absolutely nothing:

The following advisory for American travelers heading for France was compiled from information provided by the U.S. State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Disease Control and some very expensive spy satellites that the French don't know about. It is intended as a guide for American travelers only and no guarantee of accuracy is ensured or intended.

General Overview

France is a medium-sized foreign country situated on the continent of Europe, and is for all intents & purposes, fucking useless. It is an important member of the world community, although not nearly as important as it thinks. It is bounded by Germany, Spain, Switzerland and some smaller nations of no particular consequence or shopping opportunities. France is a very old country with many treasures such as the Louvre and EuroDisney. Among its contributions to Western civilization are champagne, Camembert cheese, the guillotine, and body odor. Although France likes to think of itself as a modern nation, air conditioning is little used and it is next to impossible to get decent Mexican food. One continuing exasperation for American visitors is that the people will-fully persist in speaking French, although many will speak English if shouted at repeatedly.

The People

France has a population of 54 million people, most of whom drink and smoke a great deal, drive like lunatics, are dangerously over sexed and have no concept of standing patiently in a line. The French people are generally gloomy, temperamental, proud, arrogant, aloof and undisciplined; those are their good points. Most French citizens are Roman Catholic, although you'd hardly guess it from their behavior. Many people are Communists and topless sunbathing is common. Men sometimes have girls' names like Marie and they kiss each other when they hand out medals. American travelers are advised to travel in groups and to wear baseball caps and colorful pants for easier mutual recognition. All French women have small tits, and don't shave their armpits or their legs. In general, France is a safe destination, although travelers are advised that France is occasionally invaded by Germany. By tradition, the French surrender more or less at once and, apart from a temporary shortage of Scotch whisky and increased difficulty in getting baseball scores and stock market prices, life for the visitors generally goes on much as before. A tunnel connecting France to Britain beneath the English Channel has been opened in recent years to make it easier for the French government to flee to London. France was discovered by Charlemagne in the Dark Ages. Other important historical figures are Louis XIV, the Huguenots, Joan of Arc, Jacques Cousteau and Charles de Gaulle, who was President for many years and is now an airport. The French armies of the past have had their asses kicked by just about every other country in the world. The French form of government is democratic but noisy. Elections are held more or less continuously and always result in a run off. For administrative purposes, the country is divided into regions, departments, districts, municipalities, cantons, communes, villages, cafes, booths and floor tiles. Parliament consists of two chambers, the Upper and Lower (although, confusingly, they are both on the ground floor), whose members are either Gaullists or communists, neither of whom can be trusted. Parliament's principal pre occupations are setting off atomic bombs in the South Pacific and acting indignant when anyone complains. According to the most current State Department intelligence, the current President is someone named Jacques. Further information is not available at this time. The French pride themselves on their culture, although it is not easy to see why. All of their songs sound the same and they have hardly ever made a movie that you want to watch for anything except the nude scenes. Nothing, of course, is more boring than a French novel (except perhaps an evening with a French family.) Let's face it, no matter how much garlic you put on it, a snail is just a slug with a shell on its back. Croissants, on the other hand, are excellent although it is impossible for most Americans to pronounce this word. American travelers are therefore advised to stick to cheeseburgers at McDonald's or the restaurants at the leading hotels such as Sheraton or Holiday Inn. Bring your own beer, as the domestic varieties are nothing but a poor excuse for such. France has a large and diversified economy, second only to Germany's economy in Europe, which is surprising since people hardly ever work at all. If they are not spending four hours dawdling over lunch, they are on strike and blocking the roads with their trucks and tractors. France's principal exports, in order of importance to the economy, are wine, nuclear weapons, perfume, guided missiles, champagne, high-caliber weaponry, grenade launchers, land mines, tanks, attack aircraft, miscellaneous armaments and cheese. France enjoys a rich history, a picturesque and varied landscape and a temperate climate. In short, it would be a very nice country if French people didn't inhabit it, and it weren't still radioactive from all the nuclear tests they run. The best thing that can be said for it is that it is not Spain. Remember no one ordered you to go abroad.

Personally, we always take our vacation in Miami Beach and you are advised to do the same.

Regards,

George W. Bush
President, United States of America

Posted 10:26 AM by Robert

Best-trained, Best-equipped, Best-led?

Nancy Pelosi repeats a line that other liberals and Democrats - including the thoughtful Matt Miller - have also offered:

"This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years. This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years."

Or, as Mr. Miller puts it:

The main truth it underscores is how divorced the defense debate is from real life. The myth that Democrats are "weak on defense" and the GOP is "strong" is one that Democratic strategists have struggled with for years. The reality is that Bill Clinton's defense budgets roughly tracked the blueprint left by then-defense secretary Dick Cheney in 1992. But politics explains why Bill Clinton insisted the Pentagon maintain a Cold War budget even without a Cold War, to protect his party's right flank.

How true are such claims? Mr. Clinton was indeed President and Commander-in-Chief for 8 years. And it does seem as though a good deal of technological and perhaps other progress has been made in the United States military since the beginning of 1992, the year Mr. Clinton became President.

But it is certainly not true that Mr. Clinton insisted the Pentagon maintain a Cold War budget. In fact, Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, correctly wrote this at the end of 2000:

Beginning in the early 1950s and throughout the cold war, America spent on average 6–8 percent of its gross national product (GNP) on defense, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was in the Oval Office. It briefly dropped slightly below 5 percent in 1977–78 only to rise again. With the end of the cold war, defense spending declined dramatically beginning in 1990. By 1996 it had dropped to 3 percent of GNP and today is even lower. The United States is now [that is, 2000] spending less on defense as a percentage of GNP than anytime since the Great Depression.

Indeed, Mr. Schweizer points out that much of the Clinton era federal budget surpluses could be explained by reductions in the defense budget, and goes on to point out:

America no longer needs a cold war-level defense budget. But there is plenty of evidence that defense cuts have gone too far. There are ample reports of spare parts shortages and cutbacks in training due to concerns about cost. It is also increasingly difficult to retain quality officers and senior enlisted personnel. In part this reflects the hot civilian job market, but surveys also indicate that frustration is high and morale is low in the armed forces. ... Research and development in the defense arena requires a long lead time. We need to fund research projects that will provide weapons for our soldiers fifteen years from now.

That long lead time poses a major problem for those such as Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Miller wishing to assert that Mr. Clinton's acts promoted adequate national defense. Simply put: Whatever technological advances occurred in the military over the Clinton years were bound to depend on research and development conducted previously. That is nothing new. The advances of the Reagan years consisted mostly of implementing technology existing at the time Mr. Reagan took office and expenditure increases. Correspondingly, if the Clinton Administration degraded the military, one would expect to find the consequences of that degradation in reduced research and development efforts and reduced military expenditures.

As already noted, military expenditures did decline under Mr. Clinton. But some reduction in military expenditures following the Cold War obviously was appropriate - and had begun under George H.W. Bush. The cuts were implemented by a Democratic-controlled Congress, but without much resistance from that President. The correct question in this area is: Did the reductions in military expenditures go too far and, if so, who was responsible? Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has spelled out some details:

"The coasting went on too long," Rumsfeld told reporters during a briefing June 27. "Underfunding in significant accounts has created a series of shortfalls with respect to very important key categories." Shipbuilding is on a path to a "steady state" of 230 vessels, he said. "I'm not in the position to say at this moment exactly what number of ships we need in the United States Navy, but it is very clear that it is considerably more than 230 ships." The Navy currently has 310. ... "We have an aging aircraft fleet in all the services," Rumsfeld said. Infrastructure is in the same situation. He said private firms recapitalize their facilities every 57 years. DOD, with its historic buildings, would probably want to recapitalize every 67 years. "We're currently up in the 190-years recapitalization," he said. "We are not investing on an annual basis at a level sufficient to deal with the obvious problems that happen to all types of buildings, sewers, roads -- all the things that are necessary for a large enterprise like the defense establishment." ... "The point is that you can simply not do everything in a single year," he said. "There is no way that it can be done. It took years to get into this circumstance, and it's going to take some years to get out of it."

Mr. Rumsfeld's examples seem pretty damning on the expenditure side. And many others believe that the United States military is simply overstreched and underfunded:

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed and an interview on April 2 with The Washington Times, Gen. McCaffrey, a Democrat who has been sharply critical of the Pentagon's handling of the current Iraq campaign, ... observes that much of the deployable ground combat power of the Army and the Marine Corps is likely to be tied up in Iraq for another year (and that's probably a low estimate). In addition, more than 240,000 troops are already deployed in other areas of the world, including Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Sinai and South Korea. Gen. McCaffrey is particularly compelling and forceful on North Korea. He emphasized the need to make it clear to North Korea that it would be making a huge mistake to assume that the United States is bogged down in Iraq and therefore unable to respond to new threats from Pyongyang -- either against South Korea or the 37,000 American troops stationed there. The United States, he says, would be inviting trouble on its strategic flanks if international troublemakers conclude that we lack the military power -- or political will -- to respond to threats.

But there's a big issue here: Congress, not the President, ultimately controls spending. And Congress was in Republican hands from 1995 to the end of Mr. Clinton's term. It is true that Congress is not set up to instigate all forms of defense expenditure decisions - cooperation and leadership of the President is essential. But Congress routinely alters Presidential requests substantially. I find it hard to accept that the Republican Congress does not share substantial responsibility for defense expenditures levels following the 1994 election.

What about technology research and development? How much did the Clinton Administration do to advance or restrain research and development? That question seems to me much more difficult than the expenditure question. Of course, one can to some extent look at the military research and development budgets – although they (or at least their public versions) are often said to be unreliable because of secrecy issues. Also, technology research and development is largely driven by proposals from the military itself (although defense contractors can also speak to Congress directly). And the President appoints the people who do the proposing and endorsing of research and development. If the President lets the military brass know that he doesn't want them proposing too many research and development projects that might result in big defense appropriations, then it is unrealistic to think the military will defy the President too much. Many promising research projects originate with defense contractors. But if the military signals to such contractors that new research projects will not be enthusiastically endorsed by the military itself, the contractors will likely look elsewhere.

Was there a Clintonian "lobotomizing" of the military, an instilled reticence to seek out, endorse or advance promising research projects on the part of the military and/or defense contractors? For what it's worth, the Man Without Qualities personally knows some rather high operatives concerned with military research and development. While they, of course, do not share confidential information and they are discrete and often evasive, it has been my distinct impression that they do believe that the military knew much more than they proposed during the Clinton years with respect to weapons research. That reticence has now mostly ended, of course. Perhaps a Congressional or outside study could determine more. But such studies tend to become hopelessly politicized and/or technical. I'm therefore not convinced that a case can be made one way or the other on this issue that would be sufficiently clear to present to the voting public - as opposed to a much smaller community of the informed, interested and willing.

Posted 4:17 PM by Robert

He'll Be Back

The Man Without Qualities is a big Schwarzenegger fan. And I really would like to believe that he could be elected Governor or Senator of California.

However, before people start getting too serious about those prospects, I would like to know what the answers to some rather obvious questions are going to be, bearing in mind that a Republican candidate in California must be able to muster a coalition including a lot of economic and social conservatives, including Christian conservatives. According to the Field Institute, only 37 percent of registered Republicans regard themselves as middle of the road whereas 40 percent describe themselves as strongly conservative and 23 percent as somewhat conservative. So it seems to me that before the Republican Party seriously considers Mr. Schwarzenegger, they had better have thoroughly thought through some very unpleasant questions:

1. Mr. Schwarzenegger was for a good many years a major figure - perhaps the major figure - in Southern California bodybuilding, and bodybuilding has a lot of unpleasant and even illegal aspects. He has admitted and regretted using damaging, muscle-enhancing drugs. That alone will not have much effect on his political prospects - it is, after all, his body and his health. But what about others? - say, impressionable young men who began taking such drugs during his reign? Did Mr. Schwarzenegger actively encourage such drug-taking? Are there any now-severely-damaged current or former bodybuilders who will claim that the reason they now have defective kidneys or hearts or other horrible maladies is that they began taking body-building drugs at Mr. Schwarzenegger's urging? Did Mr. Schwarzenegger actually supply such drugs to others?

2. Was Mr. Schwarzenegger involved with any of the other less-than-attractive aspects of the serious body building scene? Are there people who would or could credibly claim that he was? For example, Mr. Schwarzenegger's nude photographs have been published in Spy Magazine. Is that the full extent of Mr. Schwarzenegger's adventures in the skin trade? And I write this without meaning to condemn Mr. Schwarzenegger in any way or to suggest that he has trafficked or participated in the pornography business.

3. Mr. Schwarzenegger has often been rumored to have a very healthy and wide-ranging heterosexual appetite. I again do not judge his behavior here - but many in his necessary voting base would. Moreover, there are some rather common - but not universal - consequences of such behavior. Are there women who will make unpleasant claims during a heated election?

I bring these issues up not out of any desire to slime Mr. Schwarzenegger or to suggest that he could not be a successful candidate. In fact, my guess is that he is likely not very vulnerable on any of these counts. His interest in seeking statewide office suggests that he doesn't have much to hide. I am aware of nobody claiming that Mr. Schwarzenegger was involved in drugs (beyond using them), prostitution or pornography. I am aware of no rumors that he has illegitimate children.

But I also recall that many in California still believe that former Republican Senate candidate Bruce Hershenson is a porno fan, a rumor successfully spread by Democrats on behalf of Barbara Boxer on election eve - an election in which Ms. Boxer was very narrowly elected. Such charges and slime have more impact against Republicans than Democrats simply because many more Republican voters are socially conservative. It seems all but certain that Democrats will again use such tactics if Mr. Schwarzenegger is put forward.

Unfortunately, that means that answers to such questions simply must be readied in advance. Otherwise, it's not worth the trouble to the Party or Mr. Schwarzenegger. And, if good answers exist, shouldn't the questions be raised and put to rest now?

Posted 10:15 PM by Robert

Beethoven For Sale

A Ninth Symphony manuscript, no less. Scribbled with the Great One's remarks and insults directed at the copyist.

If only I had saved my lunch money!

Posted 9:53 PM by Robert

The Pope v. Der Führer?

Mark Riebling's new book looks like it's going to be controversial:

[T]he Vatican had pursued a two-track policy toward Hitler. In public, Pius Twelve refrained from denouncing the Holocaust -- a silence that would later cause much controversy. In secret, however, the Pope was a linchpin of counter-Nazi coup plans. He had been an accessory to these plans since the seventh week of the war, when he agreed to be a covert conduit between the German resistance and the British Government. Gradually the Catholic role expanded, until the Vatican was not merely a mediator, but an active plotter. Through a trusted courier, the Pope sanctioned the efforts of German Catholics, including some Bavarian-Jesuit priests, who sought to remove Hitler. For security reasons, these underground agents sometimes acted without the Pope’s prior knowledge. But the surviving plotters, debriefed after the war, insisted that no important decisions were made against the Pope’s expressed wishes. Their resistance activities, therefore, were not rogue actions. "In the OSS," Rocca said, "we referred to the Catholic conspirators as the ‘Vatican Assassins.’"

Posted 12:07 PM by Robert

Sun Spots on Global Warming Arguments

The BBC reports that a fracas over the effect of the sun on the earth's climate raises the need for yet more research to determine the causes and likely consequences of global warming:

A US scientist has cast doubt on the controversial idea that the Sun has been the main contributor to climate change over the past 20 years. The Sun is known to brighten and fade from time to time, influencing temperatures on Earth. Scientists are divided over how significant a factor this is compared with what people are doing to the planet. A recent study suggests the Sun has brightened steadily over the past 20 years, accounting for half or more of the 0.3 degrees Celsius warming blamed on greenhouse gas emissions since 1980. ... What is clear, however, is that more work needs to be done to iron out uncertainties.

Of course, "more work" is exactly what the President and Bjorn Lomborg have called for - and exactly what their respective critics say is not needed.

Posted 10:28 AM by Robert

Mere Coincidence?

Washington Post:

The latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll shows that 77 percent of Americans say they support the decision to go to war ....

and

BBC:

US citizens are turning to the internet in record numbers to find out about the war in Iraq, a survey has found. According to a report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project 77% of Americans have used the net to find out about the conflict.

Posted 10:29 PM by Robert

The Tragedy In Saddam Hussein's Apparent Demise

There is evidence, not yet confirmed, that the Al-Saa Restaurant - now reduced to dust by American bombs seeking to kill Saddam Hussein - might have been a pretty good place to eat.

Sad.

Posted 10:04 PM by Robert

The Ghost Of Clinton Administration Incompetence Rules Us From The Grave

The Washington Times reports:

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's strategy of creating a "series of Mogadishus" in Iraq's southern cities failed because the United States committed overwhelming firepower and political will, unlike in Somalia in 1993, Pentagon officials said yesterday. ....

The allies' rout of the Fedayeen stirs memories of urban battles in Somalia nearly 10 years ago. At the time, a joint U.S. task force tried to subdue warlord gangs and capture their leaders so that humanitarian workers could save starving Somalis. The force consisted of extremely light infantry: Army Rangers, Delta Force, some infantry and helicopters. There was no armor. AC-130 gunships had been withdrawn because some Clinton administration officials feared that the planes' machine guns and cannons did too much damage. After 18 service members were killed in an operation retold in the "Black Hawk Down" book and movie, President Clinton withdrew troops from the Horn of Africa nation.

The disaster in Mogadishu became legend among Islamic terrorists as a lesson in how to defeat the Americans.

Several Pentagon sources say the Ba'ath Party regime repeatedly referred to "Black Hawk Down" in military training. As the allied invasion neared, Baghdad sent thousands of Fedayeen fighters into southern cities to create "a series of Mogadishus," one Pentagon source said.

The source said the regime believed that if the Fedayeen caused dozens of combat deaths, the U.S. troops would leave, just as they did in Somalia.

One shudders to imagine what grotesque little thoughts are still creeping around inside the heads of the rulers of, say, North Korea, as a result of their encounter with Clinton Administration incompetence.

Posted 9:38 PM by Robert

Just Like Barbra Said!

Barbra Streisand is not much of a political visionary. But her song lyrics can be prophetic:

Like a rose under the April snow
I was always certain love would grow.
Love ageless and evergreen
seldom seen by two.

Posted 5:28 PM by Robert

What Are Friends For?

The Russians have been good to Saddam Hussein. And now there's this report:

Iraq may have set up the weekend attack on a convoy of Russian diplomats fleeing Baghdad by instructing the drivers to take a different route than planned. The official, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said there were indications the Iraqis had tried to create an international incident by altering the route of the convoy to pass through a contested area west of Baghdad on Sunday.

Posted 11:18 AM by Robert

Delusion and Denial In Araby

The Associated Press is reporting a remarkably widespread denial through Arab countries of what is obviously happening in Baghdad:

Over croissant and coffee at a cafe, Saudi accounting instructor Haitham al-Bawardi, 30, said he was skeptical about the reports [f US marines in central Baghdad].

"How can we know this is for real and not just coalition propaganda?" he said. "We had hoped Saddam would inflict as many casualties on the invaders as possible to teach them a lesson and make them think twice before striking another Arab country." ...

Abdelfattah, 41, a worker in a regional city council, said the reports were "all lies." "It is a psychological war," Abdelfattah said. "If it is true, then it is only a military strategy, to lure the American forces into a trap." Abdelfattah insisted that Saddam will fight to the end. "He will remain standing until he dies while fighting for Iraq," Abdelfattah said. ...

Ali Oqla Orsan, head of the Arab Writers' Union, described the U.S. incursion as a "propaganda parade," and said he hoped the allied troops would face "total defeat." ....

In Muscat, Oman, scores of men grew angry as they watched the news from Baghdad. One shouted, "Where is your army, Saddam?" Another was skeptical about the report, grumbling, "These Americans are relying on false propaganda!" ....

Mohammad Abdolghani, 36, an Afghan worker in Iran, said the United States, despite its claims, would not help rebuild Iraq. "Americans didn't do anything good in our country after toppling the Taliban. Now, I think they will not do also anything for the Iraqi people," he said. "Americans are arrogant. I hope they suffer heavy casualties so that they will not invade other countries."

In Lebanon, most citizens stayed close to their TV sets or radios to follow the news. Many refused to believe the reports, opting instead for Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf's version of events, in which he denied that Americans had entered the capital. "The Americans have been lying a lot since the beginning of this campaign so I don't believe them," said Hisham Moniyyeh, 27, who runs a currency exchange shop in the southern port city of Sidon. ...

A Saudi university student insisted Saddam would prevail.

"The Iraqi people will resist and turn Baghdad into another Vietnam for the Americans, a trap from which they will not emerge alive," said Saleh al-Nuaim.

But why should any of this be surprising? In the United States there are people who think the moon landing was a fake, Hollywood production. And it would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between people who believe that what they are seeing in Baghdad is fake, on one hand, and people who think that global warming is a firm reality and that the Kyoto Accord is a really important step to stopping the coming disaster, on the other hand.

Posted 9:24 AM by Robert

Some Potpourri For Hans Blix

U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday. NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."

Sarin and mustard gas - scents better than French perfume in the international political arena!

MORE: Separate discoveries: Military sources said experts were looking at three 50-gallon barrels and 11 25-gallon barrels found at the site. As well as sarin, they may also have found phosgene, a choking agent that causes fluid buildup in the lungs...

Over the weekend, U.S. Marines in the central Iraqi town of Aziziyah began digging up a suspected chemical weapons hiding place at a girl's school..

AND MORE: Report from what may be one of the sites already described above: U.S. soldiers evacuated an Iraqi military compound on Sunday after tests by a mobile laboratory confirmed evidence of sarin nerve gas. More than a dozen soldiers of the Army's 101st Airborne Division had been sent earlier for chemical weapon decontamination after they exhibited symptoms of exposure to nerve agents.

AND STILL MORE: A New York Times report from what may be another location and of more toxins:

The soldiers, looking for weapons, soon found several oil drums on the site. They called in help from their chemical unit. What happened next is a little unclear but several soldiers became ill, and the company quickly put on their chemical protection gear. Last night, the chemical company identified the problem as CN, a riot control gas that causes vomiting and blisters. Colonel Madere said he did not believe that soldiers were seriously ill. The colonel said that the chemical team stayed overnight to check several other large oil drums. This morning, the team tested a 20-gallon drum, and came to the conclusion that it tested positive for sarin, a nerve gas and tabun, another nerve gas. A 55-gallon oil drum came up positive for mustard gas.

BUT SOME DOES NOT TEST OUT: Chemicals found at Hindya (as reported by the New York Times, above, for example) are not weapons.

AND THIS REPORT SAYS NOTHING HAS CHECKED OUT

Posted 12:19 AM by Robert

No More Chemical Ali

Fox News is reporting that the dead body of Chemical Ali has been found.

He will not be lamented.

Posted 11:43 PM by Robert

Why Karbala And Najaf Especially Matter

The Washington Post reports:

U.S. Army troops took control of [Karbala,] revered by Shiite Muslims today, and once again drew cheers and thumbs-up accolades from thousands of smiling residents. In a pattern first established last week in Najaf, about 50 miles southeast of here, the Army routed several hundred Fedayeen fighters with airstrikes, artillery, armor and infantry fire for 24 hours. After pounding Karbala on Saturday, the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division this morning massed six companies to sweep through a final stronghold of southwestern Karbala.

The media refer to Karbala and Najaf as "Shia Holy Cities" and the like and also provide some detail. But the coverage that I have seen doesn't really capture just how important these cities are to the history of Islam.

Ali was the first cousin and son-in-law of Mohammed, but a very controversial leader of Islam. Ali's two sons - Hussein (or Husayn) and Hassad - were therefore Mohammed's grandchildren. "Shia" originally meant "Those Who Favor or Endorse Ali." Ali was murdered. From that point, one source summarizes the key events of Karbala and Najaf this way:

Muawiyah was declared caliph. Thus began the Umayyad Dynasty, which had its capital at Damascus. Yazid I, Muawiyah's son and his successor in 680, was unable to contain the opposition that his strong father had vigorously quelled. Husayn, Ali's second son, refused to pay homage and fled to Mecca, where he was asked to lead the Shias--mostly Iraqis--in a revolt against Yazid I. Ubayd Allah, governor of Al Kufah, discovered the plot and sent detachments to dissuade him. At Karbala, in Iraq, Husayn's band of 200 men and women refused to surrender and finally were cut down by a force of perhaps 4,000 Umayyad troops. Yazid I received Husayn's head, and Husayn's death on the tenth of Muharram (October 10, 680) continues to be observed as a day of mourning for all Shias. Ali's burial place at An Najaf, about 130 kilometers south of Baghdad, and Husayn's at Karbala, about 80 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, are holy places of pilgrimage for Shias, many of whom feel that a pilgrimage to both sites is equal to a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The importance of these events in the history of Islam cannot be overemphasized. They created the greatest of the Islamic schisms, between the party of Ali (the Shiat Ali, known in the West as Shias or Shiites) and the upholders of Muawiyah (the Ahl as Sunna, the People of the Sunna--those who follow Muhammad's custom and example) or the Sunnis (see Glossary). The Sunnis believe they are the followers of orthodoxy. The ascendancy of the Umayyads and the events at Karbala, in contrast, led to a Shia Islam which, although similar to Sunni Islam in its basic tenets, maintains important doctrinal differences that have had pervasive effects on the Shia world view. Most notably, Shias have viewed themselves as the opposition in Islam, the opponents of privilege and power. They believe that after the death of Ali and the ascension of the "usurper" Umayyads to the caliphate, Islam took the wrong path; therefore, obedience to existing temporal authority is not obligatory. Furthermore, in sacrificing his own life for a just cause, Husayn became the archetypal role model who inspired generations of Shias to fight for social equality and for economic justice.

Posted 2:28 PM by Robert

Bad News From The Middle Ages For Democrats

Many top Democrats consider environmental issues to be one of their major advantages - with the Bush Administration's "repudiation" of the Kyoto Accord (if a President can "repudiate" a treaty of which the Senate totally disapproved) at the top of the list of this Administration's supposed environmental errors.

Well the Democrats can always fall back on other environmental arguments. But it appears that a new Harvard-led study will complicate arguments based on supposed global warming - whose extent and destructive consequences are taken as pseudo-religious truth by much of the left:

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages. ... A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists. The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world. The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today. They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.

The study is interesting on many levels - but especially because even if it does not hold up, a lot more study and research will be needed to discredit it, if that can be done at all. President Bush came under intense fire from activists and politicians who are apparently unaware of their own extremism for his decision to turn the question of global warming over to scientists for further research. For example, Salon noted: Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope [said:] "President Bush's approach of merely studying global warming is irresponsible and will embarrass the United States in front of the rest of the world." ... Others have responded with a mixture of condescension and sarcasm. Take this headline from the U.K. Guardian last week: "It's true Mr President, the world's hotting up." And the Associated Press reported: For many climate experts, the administration's latest strategy reopens questions that most scientists considered already fairly settled. ... "It seems like they're reinventing the wheel because some people didn't like the direction indicated the last time the analysis was done," said Dan Lashof, science director for the climate program at the Natural Resources Defence Council, an environmental group. "The overall thrust of this plan is to take a giant step backward and almost pretend that the last decade and findings by the scientific community don't exist," he added.

But now it looks as though the proponents of Kyoto have a lot more homework to do, if only to undermine the Harvard study - homework that they had previously and rather haughtily denied needed doing at all, even as a President they deride as ignorant told them more study was needed.

Isn't it odd that facts about the weather in the Middle Ages might have a significant impact on an American 21st Century election?

Just imagine what the consequences could be of a dispositive determination of the price of eggs in China!