military : Duthie On...

So the Pentagon released a report that says, among other things:

One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam’s ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s “coercion” toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and “outreach programs” for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

The New York Times headline, meanwhile, says of the report:

Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie

Of course, the first line of the article qualifies the headline significantly:

There was no direct operational connection between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda before the war in Iraq, says a Pentagon-sponsored study.

The study, meanwhile, found clear connections between Saddam Hussein's IIS security organization and, among others, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was run by none other than al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Seems appropriate somehow for the media to be in such denial about the truth of Saddam's support for terrorists, given that denial's not just a river in Egypt.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups: Pentagon Update: What it means

Good for The Daily Show for taking on more than just conservative targets:

How can you possibly out-parody the self-parody that is Code Pink? The final moment of the video is just hysterical, and so representative of the clue-free nature of this debate. Also watch for the lib answer to the question, "so if we got rid of the police, we wouldn't have crime? (around 3:50). Priceless."

This time, it's the U.S. Naval Academy, which is considering overhauling a traditional ritual contest in the name of "safety".

The Herndon Climb, which involves a "thousand first-year midshipmen struggl[ing] to conquer a 21-foot granite obelisk coated with 200 pounds of lard," has been a part of the academy for many years, but may now be revised "with...safety in mind."

As many of those interviewed for the story point out, it's rather absurd to obsess about the safety of a traditional contest in a school that prepares sailors to go to war. Oddly enough, no one other than the academy spokeswoman had anything approving to say about the move.

When even the Washington Post can't manage to find someone with something good to say about your politically correct idea, it's time to reconsider. Let's hope the Naval Academy does just that.

OK, they are letting him go...but they insist on a name change: 

Who remembers playing with G.I. Joe as a kid?

For those of us who grew up with normal childhoods, instead of the moonbat-infested, politically correct childhoods forced onto kids today, G.I. Joe was the action figure to have. It was originally started in the 60s as a WWII soldier, with soldiers from other countries (Germany, England, and believe it or not, France), but saw its most successful sales during the resurgance in the 80s, with the Real American Hero, or RAH line. There was also a cartoon and a comic book series to help market the toy. The G.I. Joe team fought the COBRA Command, a terrorist organization. The man who would become Cobra Commander swore to overthrow the government and take over the world, as all good antagonists do.

...

G.I. Joe was unabashedly patriotic. Many fans were, of course, excited to hear about the new movie to be released by Paramount.

But of course, in the liberal land of Hollyweird, a Real American Hero is just unacceptable. Nope, it's gotta be a global hero. G.I. Joe will be a global operation, not an American one, and G.I. Joe now stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity

Do these people have no shame at all?

G.I. Joe: "Real American Hero" no more (Wizbang)

OK, it was bad enough when the threat was lead paint in kids' toys...now this: 

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Beijing factory recycled used chopsticks and sold up to 100,000 pairs a day without any form of disinfection, a newspaper said on Wednesday, the latest is a string of food and product safety scares.

Counterfeit, shoddy and dangerous products are widespread in China, whose exports have been rocked in recent months by a spate of safety scandals, ranging from pet food to medicine, tires, toothpaste and toys.

Officials raided the factory and seized about half a million pairs of recycled disposable bamboo chopsticks and a packaging machine, the Beijing News said.

As I've said before...it's not that this comes as a shock to me, though you can be sure I'll stick with my own utensils from now on...it's that I'm surprised that it's taking us so long to realize just how problematic Chinese goods are.

And it's worse than just potentially contaminated chopsticks, lead-coated toys, or poisoned toothpaste. Part of every dollar spent on Chinese goods ends up in the hands of the Communist government, which is busy building up its military to confront...well, it's not as though they have any major adversaries in Asia, so I wonder who they are preparing to confront.

Since geopolitical reasons haven't been enough to convince most Americans to avoid Chinese goods, I wonder if a wave of product recalls will be. My guess is that these will soon be forgotten, in the pursuit of cheaper goods.

Now dirty chopsticks picked up in China scare - washingtonpost.com

Apparently Barak Obama has figured out how to win the war on terrorism:

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

OK, so we'll invade Pakistan, which has been comparatively cooperative in the war against terrorism, but Iran, which is one of the major sponsors of terrorism worldwide, gets face-to-face talks? Sure, I guess that makes sense in Democrat fantasyland.

Good luck with that, Obama.

Obama might send troops into Pakistan - Yahoo! News

So The New Republic's anonymous correspondent from Iraq is no longer anonymous:

My Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Neither Beauchamp's letter, nor TNR's accompanying statement, resolves the basic issue of credibility, however. Yes, it demonstrates that the correspondent is indeed a soldier serving in Iraq. But it does nothing to address the numerous questions about his reporting, including:

• The expert statements that driving a Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the way described by Beauchamp is essentially impossible
• The description, by Beauchamp, of a situation requiring soldiers to change a flat tire in a river of sewage, despite the fact that the only vehicles used by the military that have tires use run-flat tires so that they can be driven out of harm's way if necessary. One could be forgiven for assuming that any soldier would drive out of the sewage on the run-flat tire rather than change it in the muck.
• Beauchamp's description of a 9mm "shell casing" "with a square back," followed by a claim that only Glocks use such casings, and only the Iraqi police use Glocks. Not only has the existence of "square back" 9mm casings been widely disputed, but the notion that only the Iraqi police use Glocks doesn't pass the laugh test.

Perhaps even more importantly, Beauchamp doesn't address, nor does TNR ask him to, whether or not he reported the events he "witnessed" to the appropriate authorities. If he did not, why not? This question also goes unanswered. And given that most of his accounts have him participating in some of the abhorrent behavior he describes, why would we trust his account to be accurate? Someone willing to describe himself taunting and insulting a disfigured victim of an IED attack is hardly someone whose character I'd be willing to rely on.

So great, now we have an actual name...which should help resolve at least some of the questions above, since now other media outlets will be able to find and talk to his comrades-in-arms. And until we hear from them, it seems to me that it's a little early to be simply taking TNR or Beauchamp at their word that these stories are true.

The Plank via NRO Media Blog

If you haven't been keeping up with it, the New Republic is under fire for some stories that they published by "Scott Thomas," who's supposedly a soldier serving in Baghdad. Thomas recently wrote a piece called "Shock Troops" that described soldiers engaging in a variety of abhorrent behavior, from mocking a woman disfigured by an IED, to running down dogs with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb has kept an impressive roll call of the soldiers and bloggers calling BS on various parts of the story. One of the things he notes:

The blog at the American Spectator has some great stuff on "Shock Troops." John Tabin finds more suspect information in a previous story by "Scott Thomas". In his second piece for the New Republic titled "Dead of Night," "Thomas" had written,

Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Now I won't claim to be a firearms expert by any means, but it just so happens that I fired a Glock 9mm not two weeks ago at a pistol range, and unless my eyesight is completely busted, the shell casings were round. Given that I reloaded the magazine several times in a row, I'm pretty sure that's the case. Now I suppose it's possible that the Glock 9mm I rented was the round casing model, while the range keeps the square casing model for the more regular customers, but does anyone think that's the likeliest explanation?

The silence from TNR management, particularly given their past experiences with their staff making stuff up, is deafening.

The Weekly Standard

Andy McCarthy on the Iraq war and the surge:

That's why I get so disheartened when I hear the president talk this nonsense about the universality of freedom.  If the surge is just about Iraqi freedom, we shouldn't be doing it.  The American people don't care what form of government Iraq has — not enough to fight a war over it.  They care about defeating enemies who threaten the United States, and the president has never made the case — nor do I think he could — that American national security is materially affected by whether Iraq remains Iraq as we know it, whether it is democratic, or whether the Shiites and Sunnis — despite knowing they are being played by al Qaeda — decide they nonetheless need to slaughter each other in order to somehow vindicate Allah the Merciful and the Compassionate.

and

Until we finally decide to do what obviously needs doing, the overall war can't be won.  But if we have no intention of doing what needs doing, then it pointless to go on.  That is why regular Americans — not the media and the Left, but regular Americans — have not gotten four-square behind the surge.  If we are not committed to REAL victory, meaning defeating this enemy—which is far from limited to the Iraqi insurgency and includes Iran and al Qaeda's new safe-haven on the Pakistani/Afghan border — then that's slow-motion defeat.  If we're for slow-motion defeat, we should stop belittling the people who are ready to sign off on defeat now.  I don't think we are for slow-motion defeat.  But that means we've got to start demanding a plan to win the whole thing, not just to avoid losing in the Iraq theater.

I think he's mostly on-target here. Bush has chosen, over and over again, to make the case for the Iraq war in a Wilsonian, "save the Iraqis" fashion, perhaps in an attempt (albeit a hopeless one, IMO) to win over the left. In the meantime, by not making the conservative argument (kill our enemies), and by fighting with half-measures, and largely ignoring the provocations and outright acts of war against us being committed by Iran, the President has signaled to the right that he is not serious about winning, which has lost him support on the right.

I hope that as a country we will commit ourselves to winning the war against radical Islamic terrorists, and preferably before another major attack on our homeland. But like McCarthy, I'm not entirely confident that's what will happen.

The Corner on National Review Online

So today my brother ships for Parris Island, there to become a United States Marine.

Despite obvious concerns for his safety, I am very proud of him, and I know that he will serve our country well.

Godspeed, Rob!