America joined a war already in progress
That's what an Asian security chief told American syndicated columnist Austin Bay, who looks ahead to 2004 with, not exactly predictions, but some trends and forecasts. Good stuff, as all Austin's columns are.

by Donald Sensing, 12/31/2003 08:28:00 PM. Permalink |

The NATO standard pistol is worthless
More proof that the Beretta M9 automatic pistol that is the standard issue to American troops, firing NATO-standard 9mm ball round, is almost as much of a threat to our own troops as to the fedayeen enemy:

In another incident, one of my guys got hit (luckily, in the plate of the vest he was wearing) with a 9X19 pistol round at close range. He immediately returned fire with his M9 (issue 9X19 hardball) and hit the guy five times close to the body midline. All hits were above the waist: one in neck. The bad guy was still able to close the distance, grab my guy, and try to choke him. MP came up and pumped two 12ga rounds (00Bk) into the bad guy him at pointblank range. That finally ended the fight.

For auto combat pistols there is no peer of the .45-caliber ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) for knockdown power. There is only one handgun superior to it, the .357-magnum, but this is a revolver round and the Army gave up issuing revolvers about 100 years ago; handling them is too unwieldy in battle.

In fact, the .45 Colt was developed to replace the .38-caliber revolver used by US soldiers fighting the Moros, tribesmen in the Philippines who rebelled against US rule (and Spanish rule before that). The .38 couldn't be relied on to put the Moros down; they would go into battle well fortified with homemade booze and local drugs. Some American soldiers were killed after pumping all six shots of the cylinder into a Moro, who was so anesthetized he couldn't feel the pain and so lean muscled that the weak .38 round often would not penetrate deep enough to drop him. And of course, reloading a revolver then - before speedloaders were invented - was a lengthy task.

Hence the .45 Colt, M1911 (later product improved and redesignated M1911A1), was introduced. As combat sidearms go, it was spectacularly successful. I was issued one myself when I was on active duty and carried one until I was assigned to 3d Battalion, 27th Field Artillery in 1987. That was when I was issued the M9.

IMO, the M9 has only two advantages over the M1911A1. It's lighter and repoints quicker after a shot because its recoil is less. Which sort of indicates the problem - its recoil is less because its throwing a lighter load, using less propellant. And that means less knockdown power.

I used to tell my troops that they would not need their weapons until they needed them real bad. This is urgently true with a handgun because that means the enemy is very close. Pistols are practically a principal weapon in urban fighting because they can be pointed more quickly than any other firearm. Close range gunfighters require maximum lethality to be standing at the end of the fight.

The 9mm just does not cut it. The Army should buy new .45 pistols (there being many models more modern than the old M1911A1) and re-adopt it as the standard sidearm.

by Donald Sensing, 12/31/2003 05:08:00 PM. Permalink |

How space aliens cause global warming
I earlier cited Michael Crichton's speech about how environmentalism is now a fundamentalist religion. Thanks to Braden Files, we can read why Crichton says that space aliens have caused global warming, and how they did it.

I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

And he does. I've heard genius described as being able to see patterns, relationships and possibilities that others can't. I'm starting to think that "genius" apllies to Crichton.

Update: Braden also posts the text of "great article by Tex DeAtkine, an old PSYOP and Middle East Guru who's been coaxed out of the school house at Bragg for one last hoorah. Great reading. His insights can't be discounted." Absolutely true. Read the whole thing.

Update: Belmont Club comments about and links to a piece by Ralph Peters who explains, says Belmont, that "anything short of disaster will be good enough, because the Middle East will always be a holding action. The real future lies in Africa and Latin America." Well, I would certainly add Asia, too.

by Donald Sensing, 12/31/2003 04:26:00 PM. Permalink |

We is educated . . .
Yes, indeed!

"The wedding was a formal one,
her father brought his white shotgun."
And the beer!

by Donald Sensing, 12/31/2003 02:04:00 PM. Permalink |

Bomber hits Baghdad restaurant
A bomber has just struck a New Years Eve party in Baghdad, killing four people, reported so far.



No reports of American casualties; reporters say that US troops long ago learned not to be go to such places. The neighborhood of the restaurant is said to be a very upscale part of the city, but with no significant coalition presence in the area.

Update: Here's a news story.

by Donald Sensing, 12/31/2003 12:59:00 PM. Permalink |

Spurrier's departure
I have been a Redskins fan since I was stationed at the Pentagon in 1990. In the early 90s the Skins won two Superbowls. The whole DC metro area was nuts over them. We lived in northern Virginia. My boys started school in Fairfax County schools, which taught the kids the Redskins fight song.

So I pull for the Skins except when they play the Titans, which they've done once since the former Houston Oilers moved to Nashville (Titans won).

Steven Spurrier incites passion among many football fans, but not me. I neither like nor dislike the man. But when he left the Univ. of Florida in 2002 to take the Redskins head coaching job, I did not think he would last long. Spurrier is a coach uniquely suited to college ball. He was simply overwhelmed by the pros.


Spurrier is shocked by the Eagles, Monday Night Football,
Sept. 16, 2002

When he coached at Florida he had a team that was one of the very few teams on the tip-top of the pile in college ball. Of the best 10 teams in college ball, Spurrier played against only two of them every year: Tennessee and Florida State. They played other top teams, but not every year. Florida usually beat Tennessee, but couldn't count on it, and Tennessee was an SEC team that counted in conference standings. FSU was part of the ACC, so would not affect Florida's SEC rank, but FSU was very powerful. The BCS rankings determined who would contend for the national title, and so both those games were really critical for Florida's national rankings.

Basically, though, apart from those two games and maybe two others per season, Spurrier could be quite confident that Florida would pretty much crush their opponent. (But I remember one game they played against cellar-dweller Vanderbilt in Nashville in 1998 or so. Florida barely won, 12-7. Florida QB Danny Wuerffel, last year's Redskins QB, got clobbered with clocklike regularity. Spurrier was a portrait of fury at his offense, and his verbal thrashing of his own team at the post-game press conference was awesome to behold. This was a year when Vandy had one of the worst-ranked offenses in the nation, but its defense was ranked about fifth-best. A lot of those guys play for the NFL now.)

Anyway, what Spurrier has to consider now is that there are no off weeks in the NFL. He is playing the equivalent of Tennessee or FSU every week. There are no rankings, there is only the cold, cruel ledger of the win-loss ratio. Not only is every NFL team going to play him at a consistently high level he is not used to facing week after week, at some point he will realize that the other head coaches are just as good as he is, or better. The other coaching staffs are just as good as his.

College ball has as many layers of skill and talent as a Black Forest cake, but not the NFL. The NFL has only two layers: playoff teams or stay-home teams. And all the teams are hungry, and all the teams are good.

What's next for Spurrier? D. Climer, sportswriter for The Tennessean, said last night on a radio show that he thinks Spurrier will take a year off and reappear in college ball. What about going to take over the Nebraska ball team, he was asked. Not a chance, says Climer, Nebraska has too deep a tradition and love of the running game while Spurrier is enraptured with the passing game, and there are far too few golf courses there for Spurrier, who is a devoted player during the off season.

I am still a Redskins fan, and I wish them well (right behind the Titans).

Hail to the Redskins!
Hail, victory!
Braves on the warpath
fight for old DC!

Update: Allen Barra says that NFL head coaches don't really get fired, "they get exchanged."

by Donald Sensing, 12/31/2003 12:50:00 PM. Permalink |

Comments record
I posted Dec. 23 on why nuking Mecca or any other Arab city must not be our response to an al Qaeda WMD attack against an American city, even an attack that used an actual fission bomb, killing tens of thousands of Americans.

That post has garnered more comments than any other post, now at 78. The previous record was a post during the Iraq war on whether there were any combat circumstances which would justify a US armed forces chaplain engaging the enemy with weapons, as one Army chaplain did during the battle for Baghdad.

As is so often the case, the comments were on the whole thought-provoking and often insightful. I will have more to say about this topic.

by Donald Sensing, 12/31/2003 12:34:00 PM. Permalink |

2003 in review - January
Anyone who has visited my essays page in the last few months knows it is badly in need of updating. So I've decided to kill to kill two birds wigth one stone by posting 2003 in review posts from my blog, and over time transferring some of the entries to the essays index page.

The vast majority of my postings are highloy contextual and are of little current intetrest, even to me. But some make points or offer information that are of enduring interest, at least potentially, or are humorous. So Here are those from January 2003. Other months to follow.

Firebase Four-Papa-One, Korean DMZ, 1978

Flexibility is the key to success in today's modern, volunteer, all-action Army! An essay on why improvisation is central to how the US military fights

Does the peace movement really have good intentions? No.

A case against the Iraq war

Martians send troops to fight Saddam

Humor break

This Methodist bishop does not speak for me

The draft: arguments for and against

by Donald Sensing, 12/31/2003 11:21:00 AM. Permalink |

Taking a break
See you after New Years! I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas, and wish everyone a Happy New Year!

by Donald Sensing, 12/25/2003 09:37:00 PM. Permalink |

Jesus and Santa, a Reflection for Christmas Eve
Every Christmastime we get excited about a man who does miraculous things. We are not very clear about where he came from, although we could find his home on a map or globe. You have never been there but I’ll bet you think it would really fun to visit his workshop while he worked there.

This man invites children to come and talk to him. You can tell him what you want and ask him to give them to you. The story is that he has moved in and out of locked homes by unusual means. He has a beard, dresses differently than we do, and is well known for having a hearty appetite for food and drink. He’ll visit anyone – red, yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. And, so the story goes, when he last left us to go to his home far away, he sailed off into the sky with a promise to return.

Whom have I just described?

Did you know that description I gave you of that man applies to both Jesus and Santa Claus? Let’s take a look:
What does Santa like to eat? Milk and cookies! We don’t know exactly what Jesus ate, but the Bible says some people accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard!

Where did Jesus come from? What kind of workshop did he have?

Did Jesus invite children to come and talk to him?

Can you tell Jesus what you want and ask him to give them to you?

Did you know that the Bible says that after Jesus was raised from the dead, he was able to enter locked rooms without a key?

Did Jesus have a beard and dress in a coat and tie? (No, a robe!)

Santa visits anyone who sends him a letter, right? Is there anyone whom Jesus will refuse to be with?

Did you know that the Bible says that after Jesus’ resurrection, he was taken up into heaven?

Does all this mean that Santa Claus is just like Jesus? What can Jesus give us that Santa Claus cannot?

One of the reasons these holidays seem special is that we allow to enter into our otherwise mundane lives, a piece of another reality, if only for a little bit, for a little while. Our lives become different when we live on holiday time. We don’t think of Santa Claus for eleven months of the year but come the few weeks leading up to Christmas, and we open our eyes to a sort of “Santa reality” that is briefly real to us. For these days we do imagine a world with a secret, icebound toy factory, flying reindeer, and a chimney hopping, jolly old elf.

I think that Saint John the Evangelist would get a kick out of our Santa Claus tradition. It bears enough similarities with how John understood Jesus that he would probably understand its Christian implications right away. For John explained Jesus in a way that some commentators have described as “the stranger from Heaven,” a somewhat mysterious figure who came to earth for a time, accomplished a specific purpose, then returned whence he came.

John 1:1-4, 10-14:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

Around my neck of the woods, there was this Christmastime a TV ad for Jared jewelry store in which a woman tells her husband of the diamonds another woman was given by her husband. “He got it a Jared,” she tells him rather accusingly, the unspoken implication being that the crummy necklace he got her elsewhere is second class.

Like much advertising, this ad is mostly nonsense. But reflect a moment how much Christmas advertising tries to convince us that only certain products are worthy and everything else is second best at best.

Then reflect whether in Bethlehem long ago God gave us the best that he could give us. “For God so loved the world that he sent his only son,” is the way Jesus explained it. God didn’t send a UPS package or a greeting card to let us know he was thinking of us, now and then, and hoped we would all get by okay. God had already sent his customized, holy Word in the inspiration of the Scriptures and the announcements of the prophets – advance notice, so to speak, that he was coming in person. Because, after all, when you really do care enough to send the very best, you go yourself.

The Word became flesh and lived among us. We have seen God’s glory, the glory of the Father’s only Son. God’s glory is the presence of God with us. We see God’s presence in Jesus of Nazareth. The incarnation of God as human being was the decisive event in human history because the incarnation changed God’s relationship to us and our relationship to God. The incarnation means that human beings can see, hear, and know God in ways never before possible.

The relationship of God and Jesus as Father and Son is the key to our changed relationship. The relationship between divine and human is transformed, because the incarnation gives us intimate access to the eternal reality of God. It is through Christ we best know God. “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,” Jesus told his disciple Philip.

The Incarnation of God in Jesus means that in Christ, God placed himself at the mercy of all the things which we endure. Jesus became tired and hungry. He was dependent on the charity of others for food and shelter. He lost his patience with other people and became angry; the Gospels record both. There is nothing we experience that Jesus did not know. In every way that we are human beings, so was God in Christ. Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us.

By acknowledging this fact, we recognize the bond that God has established with us, and its revelation in Jesus. God did not stay distant from us, remote and isolated. In Jesus, God chose to live with humanity in the midst of human weakness, confusion, and pain. To become flesh is to know joy, pain, suffering, and loss. It is to love, to grieve, and someday to die. The incarnation binds Jesus to the “everydayness” of human experience.

When someone receives Christ as Christ was sent – the unique embodiment of the eternal God – and when someone believes in the name of Jesus, God makes him a son or her a daughter of God. It takes a second birth to be made a child of God, a birth of the spirit, not of flesh. We are reborn from above. Jesus tells Nicodemus a few pages after our passage, “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again’” (John 3:6-7).

So we are brothers and sisters of Christ in the family of God. It’s not mere metaphor. The book of Hebrews teaches, “Both the one who makes people holy [that’s God] and those who are made holy [that’s you and me] are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters” (Hebrews 2:11). In a way, the Nativity is the adoption ceremony of you and me as God’s children.

This new identity God has given us matters in how we live our lives with one another. I have two brothers and now have three children, so I am under no illusions about the fights that brothers and sisters of the flesh have. That is the way of flesh. But I wonder sometimes whether we model our family of faith and kinship with Christ after our families of flesh. We should instead live as sons and daughters of God, born of the Spirit, living in love as ones Jesus calls his brothers and sisters.

“In the beginning,” says John, hearkening us to recall the creation stories. In Genesis, God was here on the surface of the earth. With his hands, God stooped on the ground to fashion humanity. He gave us life with his own breath. He walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, talked to them, guided them.

In the manger, God was here on the surface of the earth. In Christ, God stooped to the earth again. With his hands, Jesus healed the sick, brought sight to the blind and made the lame walk, right here in person, in the flesh. Jesus walked among the people, talking to them, guiding them. Jesus gave up the breath of his life on the cross to give to us eternal life.

“The Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory.” During Advent, we see God’s glory as a newborn baby, some shepherds visited by angels, and wise men come from afar. God is here, and Christmas is a family reunion.

by Donald Sensing, 12/24/2003 02:11:00 PM. Permalink |

Connecting the terror-alert dots
In an excellent piece, Dan Darling weaves from many theads to explain "why the alert level was raised as well as answer whether or not al-Qaeda still has the operational capacity to conduct such an attack." RTWT!

by Donald Sensing, 12/23/2003 05:52:00 PM. Permalink |

Nuking Mecca
The calculus of revenge: if the terrorists surpass 9/11, how should we respond?

Dean Esmay was not the first one to suggest American strike catastrophically against the Arab world in revenge for another 9/11-type, or worse, attack against America. But Dean’s proposal is probably the bluntest I’ve seen:

U.S. Sister City Program
It works like this: You bomb one of our cities and we unleash 10,000 times the explosives on our "sister city" as a response.

Sister Cities:

New York City - Mecca
Washington D.C. - Medina
Los Angeles - Riyadh
Chicago - Damascus
San Francisco - Tehran
Seattle - Tripoli

And so on... You get the idea.

I simply do not understand why this seems acceptable to some people. It is a shockingly immoral proposal. I have been blogging since March 2002, and I have consistently pointed out that the purpose of war is never war itself. That is, simply inflicting destruction upon the enemy or the enemy’s people is never a just end in war.

Some may respond that I invoke just conduct of war only upon our own side, that the Islamists reject our Just War model and feel no compunction or moral restraint in the wholesale slaughter of American noncombatants.

Their objections are correct. We are self-restrained, our enemy is not. That’s what makes them terrorists. But we are not to become terrorists in response.

(I recognize that Islam is uniquely vulnerable to the kinds of attacks Dean proposes. Unlike Christianity (or Judaism, too), Islam is a religion of place. One of the five fundamental duties of all Muslims is to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once. If Mecca was atomically removed from the earth, would it even be possible to be a faithful Muslim? Perhaps Muslims would adapt in the same way the Jews adapted to the multiple destructions of their Temple in Jerusalem.)

Nonetheless, with the domestic threat alert is at its highest since May. Sober warnings have come from the mouth of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that al Qaeda is " ‘anticipating near-term attacks that they believe will either rival or exceed’ the events of Sept. 11."

So let us accept Dean’s first premise, that an American city might suffer a catastrophic strike by al Qaeda that would kill many, many thousands of citizens. Imagine an atomic truck bomb in an American metropolis. Imagine 30,0000 dead and 60,000 injured, or more.

What should America do in response?

I reject a nuclear response that seeks simply to lash out at presumed enemies and make Arabs suffer for suffering’s sake. Killing just to kill would not be warranted even under such grievous circumstances.

Such an attack must evoke a severe American response, but the first question is whether al Qaeda’s attack would mean that we should change our basic strategic aims , the foundation upon which everything else depends:

... to inculcate far-reaching reforms within Arab societies themselves that will depress the causes of radical, violent Islamism. This task shall take a generation, at least; President Bush has said on multiple occasions that the fight against terror will occupy more presidencies than his own.

I say that a K-strike against America would make this objective more urgent, not negate it ("K-strike" being shorthand for "catastrophic strike," borrowing from old military abbreviations).

Therefore, the American response to such an attack must do two things:

1. Dramatically reduce, hopefully eliminate, the possibility of such an attack being repeated,
2. At least not harm the furtherance of the basic American strategic goal in the Middle East.

Therefore, there are two levels of responses that should follow immediately, political and military.

Politically, the president must seek an actual declaration of war against Iran and North Korea. It is hardly credible that an atomic attack could take place on American soil without the actual support of either or both countries. They are members of the original Axis of Evil for good reasons. Some persons may wish to add Syria to the list, but I say they can wait.

The Congress must immediately authorize the expansion of our armed forces to a level sufficient to conduct full-tempo, overwhelmingly powerful campaigns in three theaters (the Middle East, the west Pacific and one for reserve and contingency).

The American ambassador to NATO should inform the alliance that the United States is invoking all the combined-defense provisions of the alliance. America should make it plain that NATO’s failure fully to join offensive actions against the enemy states, including the deployment of combat troops and materiel, will lead to America’s withdrawal from the alliance and the formation of other security measures with other countries.

The Saudi royal family should be told in certain terms that the US will no longer tolerate the hatred and venom their society spews against America. They face a choice: the Wahabbis must be tamed and the Saudis must ally with America in deed, not just in word, or the United States will list Saudi Arabia for regime change by military force.

Every Arab in America who is not a legal permanent resident should be deported. Every Saudi-sponsored school in America should be closed. Persons of other nationalities should be deported as necessary according to the DOHS’s threat profile.

Militarily, all of Iran’s nuclear facilities must be destroyed without delay. Once Congress declares war against Iran (and it will so declare) the country must be invaded, defeated and occupied as soon as force buildup permits. Action against Iran would invoke no other nation’s meaningful opposition and Iran cannot project power effectively outside its borders. Between Iran and North Korea, Iran is the "low hanging fruit" that should be plucked first. Strategic action against its military and its leadership should begin immediately.

North Korea is a very difficult problem and will still be one even if America suffers a K-strike. Any move by the US against North Korea would invite massive retaliation by North Korea against South Korea, and possibly a strike against Japan.

Furthermore, the US armed forces are magnitudes too small to tackle both Iran and North Korea at the same time. I consider Iran the more urgent task. So the North Korean theater must be a holding action.

If finessed properly, American measures against North Korea, short of actual combat, could even receive Chinese acquiescence, perhaps even actual support. While I think the destruction of North Korean nuclear facilities would be best, that may not be possible in the near term because of the relative paucity of American power in the region.

But the fact that we will not be able to do everything there does not mean we should do nothing. At the minimum we should blockade North Korean ports. We could announce that any expansion or mobilization of North Korean forces will lead to American attack to destroy them. Direct psyops against both the North Korean military and people should be used until forces in the region are sufficient to force North Korean submission.

Pakistan is another very difficult problem. It’s entirely credible that an atomic terrorist strike against America could have Pakistani support, just not that of the Musharraf government. The Pakistani government is more like a system of baronies than a strong, federal system we have. There are Islamist sympathizers within the government and society who are motivated to aid al Qaeda and may well do so despite Musharraf’s dicta against it.

So I don’t have much useful to say about what to do if a K-strike becomes known to have received support from Pakistani elements. If we bomb its nuclear facilities, Musharraf will fall and be replaced by a virulent anti-American. So my "what to do" page is pretty blank for Pakistan, if its radical Islamists are found to be complicit in the K-strike.

There are a lot of other measures the US could and should take if we are attacked by an attack of 9/11's destruction or worse. But draining the swamp that breeds Islamist alligators will remain the foremost goal, even as we intensify efforts to kill the alligators.

Update: Michael Williams has posted that Mutual Assured Destruction is moral and he wonders whether I even understand it, which I found rather amusing since I was trained as nuclear target analyst at the height of the Cold War.

For anyone who thinks that a nuclear attack by the US, even in response to one against us by terrorists, could possibly be sane, much less proper, I tell you bluntly: you aren't thinking at all and I am profoundly grateful you aren't setting national defense policy.

Do you think that nuking any Arab city would make al Qaeda stop attacking us with every destructive means at their disposal? How many millions of innocents are you prepared to immolate before you try something else? Except then there will be nothing else to try.

NO ONE anywhere in the world would take our side on this. No one would rationalize the destruction of a third-world city and its people as their getting just desserts. There is no act we could take that would isolate us more, enrage the entire world at us more, make more uncountable new enemies, and convince billions of ordinary people around the world, not just Muslims, that America must be destroyed.

I add that Michael, like me, professes Christian faith and I have to wonder whether he has considered how America's use of nukes against an Arab city would harm the cause of Christ in the world. Far from convincing the Muslims that their faith is bankrupt, it would cause untold millions of people in the second and third world to abandon the Church altogether. Christians in the third world, already uinder severe persecution in many places, would suffer immensely and the Church would be outlawed in places it is now gaining converts.

People need to take off their blinders and try to think strategically. A nuclear response by us would completely destroy countless innocent lives - or do you actually condemn all Muslims, of any age or disposition? Do you really?. It would also destroy every alliance we have in the world. NATO would dissolve. The UK would withdraw all support wholly; Blair's government would fall immediately, to be replaced by the most virulent anti-Americans in England. We would lose all basing rights in every country in the world - Japan, Korea, Europe, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, Central Asia, all the rest. Americans across the world, including Europe, would be dragged from their homes or attacked on the streets and killed; scores of our embassies gutted. Muslim populations in Europe and the Americas would riot relentlessly.

Every Iraqi would turn completely against us; our forces there would come under constant attack from everyone, and in Afghanistan also. Pakistan would turn wholly Islamist. The entire Muslim world, not just Arabs, would be convinced that what bin Laden has been claiming is indeed true - that the US wishes either to colonize or destroy Muslim nations and destroy Islam itself. Tens of millions of new fanatics would sign up for al Qaeda's jihad against us.

I can't begin to list the nations that would sever diplomatic relations with us and expel our diplomatic staff, even the UK. All the intelligence relationships with the UK and other European nations - the most valuable we have - painstakingly built up since World War I would be aborted instantly. Same with Asia-Pacific countries. China would begin militarizing faster than ever. Russia would re-target American cities because its people would demand it.

The world's economy, including America's, would plunge into the deepest depression in history with the consequences too horrific to imagine - social dislocations, fall of governments (their replacements rabidly anti-American), civil wars on every continent except, maybe, North America and Australia.

Not only is MAD today a "strategy" of failure, it would be the means of our self destruction.

by Donald Sensing, 12/23/2003 05:37:00 PM. Permalink |

More on the trial of Saddam
Again, here is the link to my United Methodist News Service piece on justice for Saddam Hussein. And what the hey, here's a teaser as well:

Since Saddam’s capture, commentary has focused on who should put him on trial. I strongly believe this is the wrong question. The primary question is, "What constitutes justice, and how shall it best be achieved?"

Rendering a judicial verdict against Saddam is not the most important goal because his murderous guilt cannot be rationally questioned. In even the fairest trial possible, "guilty" is the foregone conclusion, at least for his major offenses. Any other verdict would mock justice rather than uphold it.

The real value of a judicial proceeding against Saddam is to render a fair, accurate, public accounting of the terror of his regime.

I argued against a UN-sponsored court to try Saddam. The International Criminal Court can't try him for his crimes prior ot July 2002 because that's as far back as the ICC's jurisdiction goes. An International Criminal Tribunal, such as that slogging its way through Slobodan Milosevic's trial now, has not been established by the UN Security Council for Iraq. With either Britain or the US certain to veto any UNSC resolution establishing one, the chance of a UN court trying Saddam is nil.

The WSJ Online provides other, excellent reasons to freeze the UN out of meting justice to Saddam:

Exhibit No. 1 is the trial of former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, currently going on at The Hague. The Milosevic follies have been playing for 22 months and are still going strong.

Proceedings are being broadcast back home, and Milosevic, who is representing himself, is making the most of it. He is using his platform to campaign for a seat in the Serbian parliament, to which he hopes to be elected on December 28. This week he inserted himself into the U.S. elections, trying to discredit Wesley Clark, who was appearing as a witness. But at least the Milosevic trial is mostly a sideshow in Yugoslavia, which has largely moved on from the war.

Giving Saddam a similar platform could be a disaster to Iraq's reconstruction, emboldening the Baathist remnants and suggesting to ordinary Iraqis that Saddam still might return to power, like some Mafia don running criminal operations from his jail cell.

Another failed model is the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The U.N. court, which was established in 1995 to try perpetrators of the Rwanda genocide, has convicted only 17 people in eight years. And that's with the help of 16 judges and a staff of 800. At this rate, a trial of Saddam, who filled 270 mass graves during his 24 years as president, could take decades.

'Nuff said. The only venue for trying Saddam that is both realistically achievable and just is the Iraqi Criminal Tribunal system, established by the Iraq Governing Council before Saddam's capture.

by Donald Sensing, 12/22/2003 04:50:00 PM. Permalink |

6.5 earthquake hits central California
Apparently this happened just now (3 p.m. CST) because right now only FoxNews and MSNBC are covering it; CNN is talking about the terrorist threat level. Between 10,000 - 40,000 people are reportedly without power. It occurred in the San Simeon fault zone, epicentered 4.7 miles down, near Paso Robles.





No reports of serous damage or deaths yet.

Update: Some deaths are now reported. Michael Williams was literally quake-blogging, so excuse his typos; it was hard to hit the right key while the keyboard was bouncing.

by Donald Sensing, 12/22/2003 03:08:00 PM. Permalink |

Cruise missiling Sudan
Former President Bill Clinton has come under fairly intense attack from the right for his tepid, ineffective response to 1998's al Qaeda truck-bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 12 Americans, hundreds of Africans, and injured more than 5,000 other people.

Thirteen days after the bombings, Clinton ordered cruise missiles struck against al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. The ties of the Sudan target to al Qaeda were fuzzy; the Clinton administration hit it mainly because intelligence linked it to Saddam more than bin laden.

The right and others (some harsh critics of the Sudan strike were on the left) maintained that the plant in Sudan was nothing more than the Sudanese claimed it to be, an "aspirin factory." And the strike is used to this day by those critics as an example of Clinton's bumbling responses to terrorism.

Okay, he did bumble and was ineffective. But The Weekly Standard says the Sudan factory was indeed identified correctly by the CIA as a chemical weapons plant, specifically manufacturing the a key component of nerve agent VX. That was what the administration told the American media.

In the years since, the intelligence conclusion has come under fierce fire. But,

Several Clinton administration national security officials told THE WEEKLY STANDARD last week that they stand by the intelligence. "The bottom line for me is that the targeting was justified and appropriate," said Daniel Benjamin, director of counterterrorism on Clinton's National Security Council, in an emailed response to questions. "I would be surprised if any president--with the evidence of al Qaeda's intentions evident in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the intelligence on [chemical weapons] that was at hand from Sudan--would have made a different decision about bombing the plant."

The Bush administration stands by the intelligence estimate of its predecessor. Neither administration has claimed, though, that the interest in the factory both al Qaeda and Saddam had means that they had interests in common with the factory. There is, say Bush officials, "highly suggestive" evidence of such linkage, but nothing conclusive.

by Donald Sensing, 12/22/2003 03:05:00 PM. Permalink |

I've been gone - patience, please!
As you might imagine, this is a failry busy time of year for me, so I beg your indulgence. I plan to be back online tonight while watching Green Bay take down Oakland on Monday Night Football.

In case you had not heard, Brett Favre's father "died Sunday of a heart attack or a stroke while he was driving, Mississippi state police said. Irvin Favre was 58." But Green Bay says Brett will play tonight.

by Donald Sensing, 12/22/2003 02:28:00 PM. Permalink |

"Ahh.. the British soldiers… they are very beautiful.."!!
The Brits in Iraq don't get much American press . . . but they should.

by Donald Sensing, 12/20/2003 01:48:00 PM. Permalink |

Wesley Clark's national health plan: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Rich at Shots Across the Bow dissects Wesley Clark's national health plan with cold efficiency and rightly pronounces it ludicrous. And there’s more than that in his post. So RTWT!

by Donald Sensing, 12/19/2003 10:41:00 PM. Permalink |

America's complicity in Saddam’s rule
While it is true that after 1991 the French, Germans and Russians propped up Saddam's regime, we Americans must face the fact that before the Gulf War, the United States was a key benefactor of Saddam.

Arnaud de Borchgrave has details in The Washington Times. As he points out, American support of Saddam dates encompassed three presidencies, Jimmy Carter's, Ronald Reagan's and George H. W. Bush's. None of their hands are clean here, and our present secretary of defense, Donald 'Rumsfeld, was a key player in US support for Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s.

One reason I oppose a UN-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal being established for Saddam and other regime figures is that the Europeans would make sure that as little as possible of their complicity in keeping Saddam in power since the Gulf War would come to light. Let us understand that America has an interest in keeping its own sins concealed as well.

by Donald Sensing, 12/19/2003 10:38:00 PM. Permalink |

My United Methodist News Service commentary is online
My commentary, "Justice for Saddam must include full account of crimes," is now online. There are also two audio sound bites from the phone interview I gave UMNS:

"All of Saddam's crimes were committed against Iraqis," slightly mis-headed, since I certainly know that not all Saddam's crimes were against Iraqis, and "We have now transcended the Saddam years." These are MP3 files.

See also a commentary on the same topic, "Justice for Hussein must hinge on values he disdained," by Liberato C. Bautista, assistant general secretary for United Nations Ministry of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society.

BTW, the picture of me accompanying the piece is several months old. I shaved off the beard last summer.

by Donald Sensing, 12/19/2003 10:25:00 PM. Permalink |

Server was reconfigured today
My host, Cornerhost.com, reconfigured its server today, and that's why postings didn't occur until now. Some changes had to be made in the FTP paths, but Cornerhost did not advise me that any work was going to be done beforehand. So all day long (when I've been home anyway) I've gotten nothing but error messages. Not sure I've really fixed it yet, so we'll see.

by Donald Sensing, 12/19/2003 10:06:00 PM. Permalink |

Name that blog!
Bill Hobbs wants to move his blog off blogger and give it a new name. He solicits suggestions for a name.

Too bad his blog isn't a group effort like Joe Katzman's is. Then Bill could call it, "Hobb's Mob."

Gosh, I crack myself up sometimes.

by Donald Sensing, 12/19/2003 10:30:00 AM. Permalink |

The Post-United Nations world
Is it time to think about a form of internationalism to succeed the United Nations? Consider this factoid from a piece I have previously cited, about the International Criminal Court:

Today, according to UN membership, there are 191 states in the world. According to information from the US State Department, roughly 60 of these nations are free democracies. Almost a full two thirds of the nations in the world do not respect the rule of law in their own countries.

The great fallacy of the UN is that it is a collegial collection of equal states, where every member state's opinion not only does, but should, have equal weight with every other state. This is nonsense, of course, but that is how the UN General Assembly is structured.

Fortunately, the UNGA is mostly toothless. It is the UN Security Council that wields real authority. It resolutions are not passed to the UNGA for approval; they are binding when passed by the UNSC. And five states - the US, Britain, Russia, China and France - have veto authority over any USC resolution. No veto can be overturned by other states' votes. Vetos are final.

Why this is so springs from the reason the UN was founded in the closing year of World War II. The UN was the brainchild of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. International assemblies of various kinds had been established long before. The League of Nations was the immediate predecessor. The United States never joined the League and the League fizzled away in the face of Italian aggression before World War II.

Once America was an active belligerent in WW II, Roosevelt wasted no time in promoting his idea of a successor to the League. As early as January 1942, Roosevelt began using the name, "United nations." In fact, it was during that month that the US, Britain, the USSR and China signed a Declaration of the United Nations "to defend life, liberty, independence, and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands." Twenty-two other nations later signed it and the name stuck in its formal founding session years later in San Francisco.

This is key: Roosevelt conceived of the UN as a means by which the Great Powers (the above-named four nations; note that France was excluded) would enforce order and discipline upon an unruly world. He stated this intention clearly to British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden and Churchill in the spring of 1943. That fall the four governments signed the Moscow Declaration in which they agreed to maintain international peace after WW II ended. Membership in the UN was to be open to any sovereign state, but in Roosevelt's mind the responsibility for policing the world would belong to the four Great Powers. The other three powers evidently agreed.

FDR discussed this postwar role with Churchill and Stalin at their conference in Tehran in November 1943. He actually called the group of the US, UK, USSR and China "The Four Policemen," who would have the authority on their own to use force against any threat to peace. It seems the four governments never discussed or considered that one of them might be such a threat.

By August 1944 France had weaseled its way into Great Power status. What we know as the UN Security Council was at first called the Executive Council, with the five Great Powers as permanent members. At first there were to be six other member states, which would serve a term and rotate off. The grant of veto authority to the permanent members was discussed then as well and was finalized the next year.

In April 1945 the United Nations was formed in San Francisco. While it was intended to be an agency for resolution of disputes without war (and other purposes) its charter specifically said that regional alliances or other arrangements for security are not precluded.

Animosity between the western powers and the USSR began almost as soon as Germany surrendered. Roosevelt's dream - that the UN would be a means of preserving the Great Powers' cooperative hegemony - was stillborn as the UN became an ideological battleground of the Cold War.

The end of the Cold War has not brought peace and harmony to the world, obviously. Nor has it brought the end of ideology. The time is now ripe to consider whether the UN is still a suitable arrangement of an internationalist system. Personally, I think it is not.

by Donald Sensing, 12/18/2003 05:20:00 PM. Permalink |

The coming Democratic tsunami?
No, I'm not talking about American politics, but about the coming political reformations in the Middle East. In an upcoming article in the Jounral of Democracy, "Iraq: Setbacks, Advances, Prospects," native Iraqi Adeed Dawisha, who teaches political science at Miami University of Ohio, says,

It is unfortunate that many in the Arab and Western press have bestowed on the perpetrators of attacks against coalition forces the grandiose label 'the Iraqi resistance.' Such a categorization, whether purposely or inadvertently, creates an impression of a universal phenomenon supported by most Iraqis. Nothing could be further from the truth. ...

Without a doubt, the mushrooming of local self-government councils has been one of the major success stories of the occupation. Even those councils that have not been elected have been selected through peaceful and relatively (or even impressively) consensual means, in more than a few cases with initial advice and assistance from coalition military officers, and are providing scope for unprecedented amounts of open debate. ...

... the most encouraging sign for the long haul is the sheer frequency with which Iraqis are using such key democratic terms as elections, parliament, human rights, press freedom, minority rights, and the like as debates over the country's future proceed.

And not just in Iraq. Bill Hobbs cites a Christian Science Monitor piece that says Saudi Arabians are starting to awake from their oppressed stupor:

Everywhere, it seems, from sidewalk cafes to women's salons behind closed doors, Saudis are talking about societal changes. Religious extremism and democratic and educational reforms, as well as women's issues, are paraded for public discussion in what has long been one of the most tight-lipped and tightly controlled lands in the Middle East. While actual political reform may be moving at a snail's pace by Western standards, the new degree of openness is earthshaking here.

"There is a dialogue in society," says Khaled al-Maeena, editor in chief of Arab News, an English-language daily in Saudi Arabia. "Newspapers are flourishing. Papers are talking about accountability, corruption, leaders not being up to the mark, women, children, and empowerment."

Turbaned Jeffersonians they aren't, but the whole region's strongmen must feel a chill wind now. At least, I hope so.

by Donald Sensing, 12/18/2003 03:58:00 PM. Permalink |

Does the Target store chain hate veterans?
That's the rumor. And it's false. HT: Michael Silence, via email.

by Donald Sensing, 12/18/2003 03:15:00 PM. Permalink |

Iraqi blogging
The Knoxville News-Sentinel (Instapundist's hometown paper) has a good piece by Michael Silence on the future of Iraqi blogging. Glenn reynolds, Jeff Jarvis and I are quoted. Good stuff!

Update: More about Iraqi blogging in the Seattle Times.

by Donald Sensing, 12/18/2003 08:56:00 AM. Permalink |

A fair trial for Saddam
I posted earlier today why I believe a guiilty verdict for Saddam must be a forgone conclusion if justice is not to be mocked. Charles Austin observes the international consternation over Saddam's potential fate in various legal venues and asks,

Why is it that a "fair" trial must somehow ignore all that is known about Saddam's crimes? I just can't wait for Reuters and the BBC to start referring to Saddam's alleged crimes once he has been indicted. In some bizarro world corollary to suspending disbelief while watching the cinema, these illiberal utopians seem to want us to suspend belief in order to "keep on open mind" or to be "fair and impartial". Nonsense. This is a false dichotomy. One can easily have an open mind and be fair and impartial without pretending to have developed no opinion about Saddam and his crimes. It's almost as if there can be no fair and impartial trial unless there is a sizable possibility, if not probability, that Saddam may be found innocent.

Since Saddam's capture, commentary has focused on who should put him on trial. This is the wrong question. The primary question is, "What constitutes justice, and how shall it best be achieved?"

Rendering a judicial verdict against Saddam is not the most important goal because Saddam's murderous guilt cannot be rationally questioned. In even the fairest trial possible, "guilty" is the foregone conclusion, at least for Saddam's major offenses. Any other verdict would mock justice rather than uphold it.

The real value of a judicial proceeding against Saddam is to render a fair, accurate, public accounting of the terror of Saddam's regime (thanks to Bill Hobbs for this insight). Fully exposing Saddam's deeds to the Iraqi people and the world is the point. Enabling the Iraqi people to face their horrors so they may grow out of them is the point. Discovering the truth of Saddam's ties to nations and international agencies that propped him up is the point.

Saddam's trial "must be an opportunity to educate the nation and make the psychological transformation from the past to the future," said Laith Kubba, a prominent Iraqi expatriate who is now a senior program officer for the National Endowment for Democracy. "What is important in these trials is not to put on trial the person of Saddam Hussein, but his deeds."

Only by learning the full truth, vetted to judicial standard, can Iraqis have a real hope of transcending Saddam. Only by such discovery can there be a hope that America, other nations and international agencies never repeat their errors or sins that left Saddam in power for so long, at the cost of so much blood and misery. So the foremost consideration of a trial is whose jurisdiction can best achieve these just ends.

A large number of UN-member states, including some European ones, are deeply complicit in shoring up Saddam’s power for the last decade. That a UN court could render an accounting of Saddam’s regime that is full, public and accurate is highly doubtful on its face. Too many nations have too much at stake in keeping their secrets.

Comes now an outstanding post by Bill Hobbs, exhaustively sourced, on just who is complicit.

Thanks to Saddam's regime, Iraq owes billions to France, Germany and Russia. For what? For weapons and for components needed to develop weapons of mass destruction. A public trial may well allow the world see the real reason France, Germany and Russia actively opposed efforts to remove Saddam from power.

Quite so. The pressure from Old Europe on the United States and Britain to agree to a UN-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal will turn immense. There is more blood on their hands than at any time since World War II.

by Donald Sensing, 12/17/2003 08:28:00 PM. Permalink |

Reflections on the Wrights
Cox and Forkum have some cogent thoughts on this, the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' historic flight. And as usual, a thought-provoking cartoon to accompany them. Good stuff, not long. RTWT.

by Donald Sensing, 12/17/2003 04:14:00 PM. Permalink |

"A court without laws"
Robert Brickman reveals "The folly of the International Criminal Court" in a PDF document published on Brandeis University's site.

... the ICC fundamentally and explicitly violates the Constitution. Were a United States citizen to be brought before the ICC, he would not have the rights secured by the Bill of Rights that many in this country take for granted. The right to a speedy trial, for instance, would not necessarily be applied in the ICC. Though the Court’s bylaws say that defendants shall be tried without “undue delay,” Hague prosecutors for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have stated that anywhere from one to five years is not considered undue delay. This practice clearly mocks the systematic presumption of innocence which remain an integral part in the trial of an American. In the U.S., a prisoner cannot simply be held without trial. If a federal defendant is not brought before a jury in three months, he must be released. Other inconsistencies such as the right to a jury trial, the right to face one’s accuser, the ban of double jeopardy and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence all point to one larger problem: by ratifying the Rome Statute and becoming party to the ICC, the citizens of the United States relinquish a portion of their inalienable rights.

That is one big reason the United States is not a signatory to the ICC and is making bilateral treaties with nations not to turn American citizens over to the ICC. Seventy such treaties have been signed already; the US goal is to sign one with every country in the world.

by Donald Sensing, 12/17/2003 04:04:00 PM. Permalink |

Saddam's fate: He must not face any verdict but guilty
I have finished my op-ed piece for the United Methodist News Service and emailed it to them, on the subject of how Saddam's trial should be handled. I'll be interviewed on the telephone this afternoon for audio on the web to accompany the piece. I'll post links when I get them.

Via Instapundit, I see that Tacitus discusses this issue rather pithily and correctly, in my view. Go read.

I'll add a thought that I have not seen anywhere. In all the discussions about how Saddam's trial must be fair and the outcome just, surely I am not the only one who thinks that justice cannot be served by any verdict except guilty.

Saddam must be found guilty and there must not be any possibility of finding otherwise. Yes, I know this sounds repulsive to tradtional American virtues of law and courts. But Saddam's case is truly unique. before you hastily rush to comment, stop and really think through what a "not guilty" verdict would mean, and what it would engender.

Saddam's guilt is absolutely unquestionable, and the verdict, to be just, must be foregone from the beginning. So reaching a verdict is not the real issue of the trial. Fully exposing Saddam's deeds to the Iraqi people and the world is the point. Enabling the Iraqi people to face their horrors so they may grow out of them is the point. Discovering the truth of Saddam's ties to nations and international agencies that propped him up is the point.

Only by learning the truth - the full truth - can Iraq have a real hope of transcending Saddam. And only by such discovery can there be a hope that America, other nations and agencies never repeat such errors or trespasses that left Saddam in power for so long, at the cost of so much blood and misery.

Update: Here's an excellent piece in the LA Times about the nuances and difficulties of Saddam's trial, no matter who holds it. To login, use laexaminer/laexaminer.

by Donald Sensing, 12/17/2003 10:33:00 AM. Permalink |

An in-depth look at internationalizing Iraq
"Internationalizing" Iraq is the new buzzword among the Bush administrations opponents, who want to turn Iraq's future over to the UN. The Friendly Ghost has a detailed look at what internationalizing by the UN has meant in other countries. It's not pretty.

Put the UN in charge in Iraq? "Au contraire," says Mark Steyn,

... it's the willingness of Kofi Annan, Mohammed el-Baradei, Chris Patten, Mary Robinson and the other grandees of the international clubrooms to give "legitimacy" to Saddam, Kim Jong-Il, Arafat, Assad and co that disqualifies them from any role in Iraq.

Exactamundo, as they say.

by Donald Sensing, 12/16/2003 10:50:00 PM. Permalink |

"Saddam is in our hearts!"
There were a number of pro-Saddam demonstrations today in Iraq. I am guessing that the demonstrators were mostly from his clan.

In Tikrit, about 700 people rallied in the center of town Monday chanting "Saddam is in our hearts, Saddam is in our blood." U.S. soldiers and Iraqi policemen yelled back: "Saddam is in our jail."

Pretty snappy. But the demonstrations weren't peaceful. There was some shooting, and US troops killed three protesters in Ramadi after they were fired upon.

by Donald Sensing, 12/16/2003 09:50:00 PM. Permalink |

A "Jacques Ruby" incident?
Damian Penny in the Globe and Mail, via Glenn Reynolds:

Ann Strickland-Clark (letter, Dec. 15) says she's "taking bets on a Jack Ruby type incident" against Saddam Hussein before his trial, because he "has a lot to reveal" that the U.S. government may find embarrassing. Considering the country where most of Saddam's weaponry and political support came from, any assassin will more likely be named Jacques Ruby.

It's already happened!



(From Politicalhumor.about.com)

by Donald Sensing, 12/16/2003 09:24:00 PM. Permalink | <a href="http://www.blog