Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall. Go read everyword he has written today.

Cold Fury is afraid that the Christian groups who will enter Iraq to provide aid to the Iraqi people might do more harm than good.

Don't forget, Iraq is home to a large christian group. Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister (ex-foreign minister) is the highest ranking christian in Iraq. So, I'm sure there will be groups of christians welcoming aid from people with a like religion. That said, 'persuading people', should it happen, is very last century and should be avoided.

The inclination towards tyranny, the wielding of absolute power by the few over the many, knows no ideological boundaries and is not confined to one time or space. I never trust anyone who says: "It can't happen here." Otherwise ethical people will commit the most serious injuries as long as they believe they are doing their "duty" - committing these injuries in a good cause. Lenin was not alone in believing that the end justifies the means: lots of people believe it, or act as if they do. It takes bravery of a different sort to maintain that the means defines the end: risk it during a time of high group stress and you're likely to be called naive, or a traitor.
- Margaret Atwood writing about her book The Handmaid's Tale, recently made into an Opera.

If one of the goals is to win the hearts and minds of the Arab Street, then according to this story we've already lost the war.

A history lesson we all need to remind ourselves of.

Not drawing any conclusions at this point... however, those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

"You will kill ten of our men and we will kill one of yours and in the end, it is you who will tire." - Ho Chi Minh

Reports of Booing in the France section of Disneyland's it's a small world. Will the madness ever stop?

Dolphin goes AWOL. Apparently Takoma has defected.

Quote to remember:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster

Another must read article. Daniel Ellsberg and William Kristol on CSPAN's Washington Journal.

Boy. I'm full of ideas tonight.

Steven Johnson posts that whatever the U.S. spends invading Iraq, it should be forced to spend rebuilding the country. An idea I'm not totally against. However, why even go through the invading step. If each year we invested $85-100 billion dollars building infrastructure, education, and industry in 3 or 4 needful countries in exchange for separation of church and state, freedom of speech, the right to representation... (you get the idea), I guarantee we will quickly see countries lining up to 'reform' and get a piece of the pie, and if they leaders aren't willing to, then the people will revolt (at which point we send in our forces to assist). The EU could do the same thing if they desire a balance in world economic power. Not only would this be cheaper than waging war, it will build the world economy and in turn, our economy.

Mac posts the following in the comments section at The Agonist:

...the idea of such a preliminary strike is an "aggressive war" since we're attacking a country that has not attacked us nor has threatened to do so. This is in "material breach" of the UN Charter and ironically violates the very language we originally crafted; so we now have international war criminals running our country, which suggests the real reason for our withdrawal from the World Court in the Hague.

The use of "preliminary strikes" also sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What other members of the so-called "Axis of Evil" may now be thinking that a "preliminary strike" against us is now reasonable given our threatening stance against them? For that matter, what about other nations that have severely strained relations, such as Pakistan and India?

Saddam is a deadly despot, and removing him from power is a good thing. In this case it's clear that the end does not in any way justify the means. By engaging in this illegal aggressive war we probably have opened a Pandora's Box that ultimately may have deadly repercussions all over the world. The ultimate death toll may make the misery exacted by Saddam's death squads and torture chambers negligible by comparison.


The second paragraph makes me think of an interesting point. By launching a preliminary strike we are essentially declaring war against the world. At any point another country feels threatened by the ol U.S. of A.(and the launch of a preliminary strike would certainly threaten me if I was Korea) all they have to is claim the 'Bush Doctrine' and launch a preliminary strike instead. There is no mutual destruction assurance here as along as only convential weapons are used, so they old cold war boundaries are completely gone. It's enough to make one paranoid (which might explain a lot of Washington DC's actions these days).

The Scotsman paints a picture of Iraq's likely guerrilla tactics and how they will draw out this war. The longer the war goes on, the more likely the scenarios in my previous post will come to pass. Frightening.

The scenario described on Tacitus is what frightens me the 2nd most (almost as much as a second war erupting in Korea which will no doubt happen if our forces become stretched too thin in the mid-east). If we call up all our reserves we certainly have enough manpower to fight Iraq, Iran and Syria/Lebanon at the same time. Israel will certainly get involved and that means we're suddenly fighting the whole region and guess what, we're surrounded. Our ships will be stuck in easy to target waterways. Our ground forces will not all be able to receive air support at the same time (especially during any sand storms). Nor will our ground forces be able to receive new supplies as quickly (and we are already stretched out and supplies can be slow). Our JDAM munitions will have to be managed and targets chosen carefully or we will run out of them. Our existing bases in Arabic countries will suddenly find themselves in hostile territory (CENTCOM will have to quicly relocate).

The second war front is even more frightening. By the time we are able to get a significant number of ground forces to Korea, they will occupy the whole pennensula having overrun our troops (with a tremendous loss of life) and leveled Soeul (again tremendous loss of life). We will have to invade from the sea again using some of the same Marines forces currently involved in the mid-east right now. (Again terrible loss of life.) Chances are that China will become involved as well, probably against their will (they would like to have another 10 years of technological developement before they plan to confront the US), but they cannot be seen as impartial to the U.S. fighting so close to their border.

Suddenly we are in WWIII. The good news is that while Russia can probably claim neutrality because of the geographic location, the rest of Europe will be forced to choose sides and will most likely join up with the western allies. The $75-150 billion this war is likely to cost will triple or quadruple, which will provide exactly the kind of stimulus the economy needs right now. If you can't find a job, the defense industry will always be hiring, that is if you aren't drafted first. President Jeb Bush will declare the policies of his assassinated brother a grand success as the world tumbles into darkness.

Of course, maybe that's all just doom and gloom. I certainly hope so.

File under bizarre! Time Traveler makes a bundle off Stock Market.

As more of our troops are being deployed to the mid-east, I am left wondering at what point do we have to re-instate the draft? The seems to be a general consensus that we can handle a two front war (Iraq and N. Korea) with no problem. But without the involvement of other allies, what do we do if a third front (Syria, Iran, Indonesia, etc...) opens?

Great reporting from a NYTimes reporter caught in the middle of a firefight.

Anonymous Blogger Emma Goldman posts further thoughts on the potential problems of installing a democracy in a country that might elect Islamic extremists. Be sure to read the original Tacitus post too.

The truth comes out!

... time is not on our side. The main risks of this war were never military but political. Sure we could pulvirise Iraq and occupy it, that was never really in doubt. But Shrubco needed a quick bloodless win for its own agenda ( oil, military bases, intimidation of neighboring powers) without excessively antagonizing the Iraqi people, the Muslim world, and world opinion in that order, and also to forestall a double dip recession which looks more and more certain at this point.
Finally, I believe the Bushistas wanted to keep the Iraqi Army intact for another reason -- to turn around and use it as part of their Army of occupation, so as not to deploy as many American soldiers as occupiers. I think this is why they went to such lengths to try and persuade commanders to switch sides. And if they negotiated like they did with the UN, no doubt they pissed off all the Iraqi commanders, and garaunteed a fight.

-- JeffC posts on the Kos comment boards

Anybody disagree?

Jeanne at Body and Soul writes a very personal heartfelt essay that everybody from the President down should read. Make sure you have.

In other news: Nanotechnology has begun to make its impact in comsumer goods. This is the start of another major technological revolution.

A good "War on Iraq" resource list from the Law School at my alma mater.

Read Digby for some important commentary on the affect micromanagement from the Bush administration is having on the waging of this war.

E-sheep is back with a look at our leader's policies. While there, be sure to check out the

Think about the future...

If I were a nation state that feels it might be threatened by the U.S. in the future and I was looking at the current progress of this war, the technological advantage, the ‘smart’ bomb capability, the vast air superiority, I’d be very worried. But I wouldn’t feel completely hopeless. Instead, I would be quickly retooling my defense infrastructure.

I would stop building airplanes and I would find someway to counter the ‘stealth’ capability of America’s main bombing force. I would stop building nuclear weapons and I would find a way to counter-strike the e-bomb (An Electro Magnetic Pulse weapon that disables/melts all electronics within a certain range) with one of my own (indeed I would develop an anti-aircraft EMP weapon). Instead of buying long range missiles, I would want to find someway to ‘jam’ the Tomahawk missiles.

I would stockpile my e-bomb around the world so it could be launched at appropriate forces in the event I am attacked. I would target financial and technology centers first, then military bases only when I have enough e-bomb’s stockpiled. I would also find a way to launch anti-aircraft e-bombs so they are small enough to not register on radar.

Finally, I would want to make sure I had a powerful media empire established around the world. I would launch cable stations, radio broadcast, and internet web sites (official and ‘grassroots’), to push my agenda even before the first bomb falls.

The object, of course, to make waging war against me such an large economic cost that the U.S. won’t want to get involved and to have the potential to keep world opinion on my side.

So while am I telling you this now... because, if I can think of it, I guarantee you North Korea and China already have.