Saturday, July 21, 2007
We will help you
Thank god, the long national nightmare of the Cheney presidency is over.
Corp. Trent Thomas says that it was God’s will that he not go to jail for killing Awad the Lame: “God’s willing for me to get out.” Also, that kidnapping and murdering a civilian was entirely justified: “I believe we did what we needed to do save Marines’ lives. I think anybody who understands what war is or what combat is understands.” The LAT analyzes why Thomas is a free man, and is the first newspaper to mention his race.
The RAND Corporation produced a report (pdf) for the Pentagon, Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation. They must know something about marketing the unmarketable: they got the Pentagon to spend $400,000 on this study. Which is about the need to change the “branding” of the Iraq and Afghan wars, because if there’s been anything missing in these wars, it’s “the application of select, proven commercial marketing techniques.” Which the authors like to call “shaping,” as in, “To ensure victory, U.S. forces must effectively shape the indigenous population.”
“It is exceedingly difficult to identify target audiences in complex and dangerous operating environments, and there is often a lack of access to segments of a population critical to conducting message pretesting.” Yes, it’s hard to run a focus group in a war zone. (When I wrote that, I was mocking. But on page 46 they do actually call for focus groups, quoting someone complaining that “products” intended for use on the Taliban were being “pretested” on civilians rather than on Taliban prisoners.) (And on pages 63-4, it discusses the difficulties in doing surveys before the actual invasion, suggesting “virtual focus groups with members of the population via Internet chat rooms.”)
A failure to synchronize messages is called “information fratricide.”
“First, the U.S. military should adopt the business strategy of segmentation and targeting whereby it would partition the indigenous population into selected groups based on their
level of anticipated support for coalition presence and objectives. Positioning is another marketing tool of potential value, one used to create an intended identity for each product that is meaningful, salient, and motivating to the consumer marketplace.”
“Customer satisfaction refers to the level of contentment consumers experience after using a product or service. Popular satisfaction with U.S. force presence can similarly determine allegiances.”
Soldiers should be issued “smart cards containing shaping themes.”
It suggests “harness[ing] the influencing power of indigenous government employees and security forces by having them keep blogs about their experiences with coalition forces and the indigenous government.”
It notes that the enemy too engages in “shaping” activities: intimidating journalists, filming their operations, providing basic services, that sort of thing. Also, culturally specific things like issuing fatwas. “These are particularly challenging to U.S. shaping efforts, as there is little opportunity to reply in kind.”
It documents several inadvertent affronts to Muslim sensibilities: “As coalition helicopters fly over urban areas, the gunners, whose feet hang from the aircraft, have inadvertently offended thousands of Iraqis who gaze above. Similarly, the use of dogs in house-to-house searches and the wearing of dark sunglasses have also angered some in the Iraqi population.”
“Interactions between U.S. service personnel and civilians drive popular perceptions of the U.S. force. Business practices that help align customer service representative actions with the intended brand identity can benefit the U.S. military.”
“Brands such as Starbucks and Apple have captured the hearts and minds of consumers and have reaped financial windfalls in return.” Hey, Trent Thomas is available for one of those “I’m a Mac”/“I’m a PC” commercials.
The keys to branding: “Know your target audience through segmentation and targeting.” I think the Iraqis have really had quite enough of segmentation and targeting. “Strategically synchronize the U.S. military brand.”
“These perceptions will constitute the U.S. military brand identity and will heavily influence how the population aligns its support. A force that is perceived as helpful and serving the best interests of the population will be far better accepted than a force perceived as hostile, insensitive, and rude.” Did I mention the Pentagon paid $400,000?
“Like commercial firms that must update unattractive brand identities, so too should the United States consider updating its military’s brand identity to suit current and future operational environments.” See, the problem is that “Since before World War II, the U.S. military has developed a brand identity based on a force of might.” And this brand identity is out of date for counter-insurgency wars.
They suggest the brand identity “We will help you.”
The main difficulty establishing that brand identity is when the US military goes out and kills people: “Virtually any kinetic operation has the potential to alienate civilians.”
If you kick down doors, they suggest, have someone there to fix the doors. If you accidentally kill someone and give out one of those $2,500 condolence payments, “determine whether the indigenous population and the afflicted families accept the prescribed payment as fair and reasonable.”
Try to achieve “customer satisfaction.”
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Marine Corps, it’s me
An email from the McCain campaign presents yet more fun facts about John McCain: John McCain’s favorite movies include “Letters from Iwo Jima” and “Some Like it Hot.” His favorite actors include Marlon Brando and Marilyn Monroe.
Bush, today: “Failure in Iraq would send an unmistakable signal to America’s enemies that our country can be bullied into retreat.” Bullied. Bullied!
Interesting factoid, in a BBC article about the Uganda government’s plan to introduce compulsory military training: there’s only one African country with a military draft, Eritrea.
Yesterday in the hearing for Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum re the Haditha Massacre, there was a debate over what the evidence showed about the death of a 4-year old boy. The investigator believes someone stood over him and deliberately executed him. Tatum’s lawyer proposed that “it was much more likely that the boy had been huddled at a woman’s bosom when the Marines burst into the room and sprayed it with gunfire after first tossing in a grenade.” So that’s okay, then.
“Insultingly light sentence,” I predicted. Corp. Trent Thomas was sentenced to zero jail time for the killing of Awad the Lame. He has been reduced to a private and been given a bad conduct discharge from the Marine Corps. Thomas had begged to be allowed to stay in the Marines: “I’ve never been good at anything until I came to the Marine Corps. It’s pretty obvious Michael Jordan was meant to play basketball. Tiger Woods was meant to play golf. The Marine Corps, it’s me.”
Bush and Sugar Ray Leonard. You know, I’m not ordinarily a big fan of the pugilistic arts, but...
Thursday, July 19, 2007
And they are an enemy and they’re real and they’re active
From the Pentagon’s website we learn today that 1) reports of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are often exaggerated, according to Gen. Dan McNeill, 2) they claim to have captured the highest-ranking Iraqi in Al Qaida in Iraq, one Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, gotten a complete statement out of him in under two weeks using only kindness and Hostess Twinkies, in which he confessed that AQI is a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham, a mere shell behind which lurk foreign puppet-masters. Why, they even invented a wholly fictitious Iraqi head of AQI, Umar al Baghdadi, to fool Iraqis and members of the Democratic Party into believing that AQI is a nationalist organization rather than being precisely the same people who attacked the United States on September 11th. Well, this should be a, how do we put it, moment of clarity.
Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri vetoed a bill which would have required insurance policies to cover infertility treatment for unmarried people. “As a matter of public policy, the state should be encouraging the birth of children to two-parent families, not the reverse,” he said in his veto message. Wouldn’t the reverse be children giving birth to two-parent families? Lesbians and other unmarried infertile people will still presumably pay the same amount as others for policies that cover less. Health insurance is supposed to be about health, not “morality.”
Bush gave a speech at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville. He was met at the airport by Joe Downs, who had his legs blown off by an IED in Iraq.
Said Bush, “We’re going to get him some new legs, and if he hurries up, he can outrun me on the South Lawn of the White House.”
Life is very simple for George, because every single problem has the same solution: “We were confronted -- this administration has confronted some difficult economic times, particularly earlier in this administration. There was a recession. There were the terrorist attacks that affected the economy in a very direct way. There were corporate scandals which created some thousand -- uncertainty about our system that needed to be corrected. And we responded to those problems by cutting taxes.”
WAIT, I’M PRETTY SURE IT STARTS WITH AN E. ELEPHANT? ESOPHAGUS? “They ought not to be trying to slip special spending measures in there without full transparency and full debate -- those are called entitlements.”
He explained the “interesting relationship between the President and the Congress.” Not surprisingly, he got it wrong: “The President [sic] has got the right to initiate spending bills -- and they do; they’ve got the right to decide how much money is spent. And I’ve got the right to accept whether or not the amount of money they spend is the right amount. [CONDESCENSION ALERT! CONDESCENSION ALERT!] That’s what’s called the veto.”
Over the course of the meeting, Bush found many, many things “interesting,” among them: the “interesting problem” of immigration, his friendship with Koizumi, this “interesting time” at the beginning of the “long ideological struggle,” the “interesting management challenges” in the Department of Homeland Security. Also: “What’s interesting about the world in which we live, there’s no question there’s the electronic media that people watch, but there’s also the blogosphere”. “The interesting thing about this fight in Iraq is that the families and the troops have got a really different view, in many ways, than a lot of other folks do”. “I’ll tell you something interesting in meeting with the families of the fallen. I get all kinds of opinions, of course. But one of the most universal opinions I get is one, I’m proud of my son; two, he was a volunteer; and three, do not let his life be in vain, Mr. President, you complete the mission.” “See, one of the interesting things about this war I forgot to tell you is, unlike, say, the Vietnam War, that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy won’t be content to stay there.” And finally, this very Q&A session was an “interesting exchange.”
Answering a question on immigration (the only half-way critical questions were on that issue), he said, “Some say, well, force Americans to do the jobs they’re unwilling to do.” Okay, who are the people who want to repeal the 13th Amendment? I want names.
ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS: “We have been a fabulous country when it comes to assimilating people. ... So the question people say is, well, certain people can’t assimilate. ... We must never lose faith in our capacity for people to assimilate.”
A WHOLE LOT OF SWEARING: “people ask me, are these really al Qaeda? Well, they have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden; what else are they?” “But I want to remind our fellow citizens that much of the violence they’re seeing on their TV screens in Iraq is perpetuated by the very same people that came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. People sworn [CONDESCENSION ALERT! CONDESCENSION ALERT!] – not the exact same person; those are dead who got on the airplanes – but they have sworn allegiance to Osama, just like the killers in Iraq have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden.”
“The enemy, by the way, defines success as, can they pull off a car bombing. If we ever allow ourselves to get in a position where it’s ‘no car bombings, therefore we’re successful,’ we’ve just handed these killers a great victory.”
“So there’s a province called Anbar province... where al Qaeda had declared its intention to really drive us out and establish a safe haven, with the declared intention of spreading -- using it as a base to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East, as well as a safe haven from which to make sure that they inflict enough pain on us that we actually help them by leaving. I know this is farfetched for some Americans to think that people think this way; this is the nature of the enemy. And they are an enemy and they’re real and they’re active.” What do you mean, farfetched for Americans that people think this way? Occupying a geographic region, spreading an ideology throughout the Middle East, inflicting pain on the enemy, isn’t that your plan? Anyway, he says that “it turns out that many people in Anbar hate violence.” Who knew? But “they may distrust their central government because it’s new.” Yeah, that’s why they distrust the Maliki regime, it’s newness. (In the referendum, by the way, Anbar voted against the constitution 96.9%.)
He said he decided “it just wasn’t the right decision” to send troops into Darfur unilaterally (he gave no reason why it wasn’t the right decision – actually, has he ever?), and so it requires international collaboration, but only the US has called what’s going on there genocide. But it’s not like we’ve done nothing: “we have put serious economic sanctions on three individuals” and “sanctioned” some companies. “In other words, we’re trying to be consequential. We’re trying to say that, you know, change, or there’s consequences.” If someone’s keeping a list of words Bush doesn’t know the meaning of, add “consequential.”
And sharp-eyed readers will have noted an “In Other Words.” There were 10 in this meeting, including this one: “But it also means that the English muffin manufacturing company -- English muffin machine manufacturing company is more likely to have work. In other words, there’s an effect, the tax code can affect commerce.”
And then he went home. Say, George, how did it go?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Guilty-ish
Corp. Trent Thomas has been convicted of kidnapping and conspiring to murder Awad the Lame, but not for premeditated murder, making a false official statement, housebreaking or larceny. Now, if he was guilty of the things he was convicted of, then he was guilty of all the other charges, which were elements of the same crime. So what the jury did was to “compromise” with the facts in order to avoid the mandatory life sentence attached to the premeditated murder charge and allow themselves to give Thomas what I predict will be an insultingly light sentence.
Fun fact about courts martial: the jurors vote by secret ballot.
Two more courts martial in this case will begin later this month.
Unfiltered
News Story That Makes Us Feel All Conflicted of The Day: “A new prosthesis under development will give servicemember amputees more flexibility and...” wait for it... “help them better perform their military jobs if they choose to stay on active duty.”
Usually when I think about commenting on a David Brooks column, I take a deep breath and decide that life is too short. Tuesday, however, he wrote about that Bush meeting with right-wing journalists. Brooks quotes Bush as saying that his belief in the inevitable progress of freedom and democracy is a “theological perspective.” You know, gift from the Almighty, that kind of thing. The rest of the column is about how Bush believes in leaders. “When Bush is asked about military strategy, he talks about the leadership qualities of his top generals. ... When Bush talks about world affairs more generally, he talks about national leaders.” Brooks, being a nitwit, doesn’t perceive any contradiction between Bush’s talk about democracy and his upholding of the führerprinzip.
The most interesting sentence in the column is “Bush said he will get General Petraeus’s views unfiltered by the Pentagon establishment.” He probably used that word too, since during the meeting he also talked about promoting the good news about Iraq, “tangible evidence that even the filter can’t filter out”. He still hasn’t learned a thing about the need to get multiple points of view, and still automatically discards any analysis that comes from an institution rather than an individual.
Today, Bush visited a company that makes underwater computer keyboards.
And just as this fabulous product gives people the choice of surfing the internet beneath the sea, Bush talked about giving people more choice in health insurance. He’s against it. Well, he’s against it if one of the choices is provided by the government. He opposes the proposed expansion of the S-CHIP program because it “would cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan.” Is it me, or is he saying that the possibility that people might prefer it is a reason it’s a bad idea? Also, “I believe government cannot provide affordable health care.” Which would astonish the citizens of every other advanced industrial country in the world, but again, it’s a voluntary program; if it’s not affordable, people won’t sign up for it. “I believe it would cause -- it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time.”
A Bush line I didn’t catch in yesterday’s session with Ban-Ki-Moon until I heard it on the BBC: Al Qaida is weaker now than in 2001 “because we’ve been working with the world to keep the pressure on”. Evidently he doesn’t realize that the United States is, actually, part of the world. Which would explain a lot.
This one’s for you: ||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Haditha Massacre hearing for Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum heard today from another corporal who shot a few people that day but was given immunity. Cpl. Humberto Manuel Mendoza says that when they raided a house, shooting a man in the house for, you know, looking at them, he found two women and several children in a bedroom, informed Tatum, who said, “Well, shoot them.” Tatum then went back and did it himself (in the news reports I’ve read, the names and ages of the dead are nowhere to be found). Tatum would later tell investigators, “women and kids can hurt you, too,” adding, “I stand fast in my decisions that day, as I reacted to the threats that I perceived at that time.” Threats like women and kids. Which are the sort of people you tend to find in, you know, homes. Tatum was known to opine (this is after the massacre) that the way to fight a war is to go into a city and kill every living thing.
You’ll remember that the Haditha Massacre began after a roadside bomb killed a Marine. When the unit sent the Marine’s pack to his parents, they signed it, Tatum adding 24 hatch marks, representing every civilian massacred at Haditha, and the words “This one’s for you.” Tatum’s lawyer suggested the marks referred to a rosary.
And in the other war crimes trial I’ve been following, Trent Thomas’s court-martial concluded today, with his lawyer claiming that the prosecution never claimed that the man Thomas murdered was in fact Awad the Lame or even an Iraqi, so he should be acquitted. Not sure I follow the logic. “There was not murder. There was a killing,” he said. Well that’s okay then.
Vanity Fair has an article on the development of torture techniques by a couple of Mormon psychologists the government hired with your tax dollars. Subtle stuff, as you’d expect from a psychologist. Actually, the authors don’t know if the CIA actually did use that coffin they built to soften up Abu Zubaydah by burying him alive... but the idea was approved by White House lawyers.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
So which candidate is in favor of indolence and perversions, ‘cause I’d totally vote for that guy
In a new ad, Mitt Romney says that he wants to engage in a culture war, get rid of sex and violence on tv and in the movies, cancel “Big Love,” and eliminate “indolence and perversions.” For the children. For the children.
If you eliminated indolence and perversions, what would Americans do in the evening? There’s only so much Scrabble you can play, and he probably wouldn’t even allow Strip Scrabble.
I just thought up Strip Scrabble, right then, but I’ve googled it and there are 675 hits. Romney has his work cut out for him.
Today Bush met with UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon. Evidently they “discussed a lot of issues.” Such as “the potential trial for -- about Hariri.” Trial? Of whom?
“And one of the things I briefed the Secretary on was my views about extremism and these radicals that will do anything to disrupt the goals set by the United Nations and/or disrupt the advance of democracy in peaceful societies.” 1) In normal usage, you “brief” someone about something factual, not about your views. Like his use of “remind” (discussed here yesterday), he is failing to distinguish reality from opinion. 2) What peaceful societies?
He said that Al Qaida is much weaker than it was before 9/11, and that it “would have been a heck of a lot stronger today had we not stayed on the offense.”
Let’s compare and contrast Bush’s remarks with the National Intelligence Estimate released today, entitled “The Terrorist Threat to the Homeland,” or at least the two-page summary of the NIE we’re allowed to see (pages 6-7). It says that “the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment” and strongly indicates that the war in Iraq is the thing heightening the threat environment. (Threat environment is a weird little phrase, isn’t it?) How does that work?
we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.While Bush says “these killers in Iraq... have sworn allegiance to the very same man who ordered the attack on September the 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden,” the NIE uses the words affiliate and association to describe the relationship, highly imprecise words that don’t say much about the nature of that connection. Although my favorite near-meaningless word in that paragraph is “leverage.” We’re meant to understand that AQ can order AQI to send people to the US, excuse me, the Homeland to engage in terrorist attacks, but they’re rather careful not to say that AQ has that sort of control over AQI.
Also, of course, it was the American occupation of Iraq that produced this entirely new body, Al Qaida in Iraq, and what is “energiz[ing] the broader Sunni extremist community” is not either group using the name Al Qaida, but the occupation itself.
Bush said that “these killers in Iraq... want us to leave parts of the world, like Iraq, so they can establish a safe haven from which to spread their poisonous ideology.” But the report says that no safe haven is actually required:
globalization trends and recent technological advances will continue to enable even small numbers of alienated people to find and connect with one another, justify and intensify their anger, and mobilize resources to attack – all without requiring a centralized terrorist organization, training camp, or leader.You know what else recent technological advances are good for? Indolence and perversions. Just sayin’.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Deadly force is the proper response to a threat
Today in the court-martial of Corp. Trent Thomas for the murder of Awad the Lame, a doctor at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda claimed that because Thomas was so often exposed to bomb blasts in Iraq, he may have received a hitherto unnoticed brain injury that caused him to be incapable of saying no to orders.
But how does that explain the same symptoms in [insert name of idiot pro-war politician of your choice here]?
In another war-crimes trial, that of Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum for his part in the Haditha Massacre, Tatum’s lawyer insisted that he was under attack, or at least that he’d heard a metallic sound which might have indicated that he was under attack, or at least that he knew a house was “hostile” because his squad leader was shooting at it, so he did too. The lawyer argued, “He was taught that deadly force is the proper response to a threat.” Actually, his rules of engagement said he also had to know what he was shooting at, it was written down on a card and everything, but his lawyer says they can’t prove he actually had the card at the time. He added, “We would have chaos on the battlefield if every lance corporal questioned every order given by a staff sergeant.” Yes, much better to have a mass slaughter of civilians than to have chaos on the battlefield. Chaos is so... chaotic.
Securing the security of others
The alliterative Peter Pace says that he won’t predict the future in Iraq because things could magically improve, you just never know: “Look at al Anbar province. All it took was about 27 sheikhs to decide they had had enough of al Qaeda, and very quickly things changed.”
This morning, Bush met with Lech Kaczynski, the tiny adorable (but evil) twin president of Poland. He thanked him for “working on behalf of securing the security of others.”
Said Bush, “there’s no better symbol of our desire to work for peace and security than working on a missile defense system -- a missile defense system that would provide security for Europe from single or dual-launched regimes that may emanate from parts of the world where leaders don’t particularly care for our way of life, and/or in the process of trying to develop serious weapons of mass destruction.” As opposed to the frivolous weapons of mass destruction. And no, I have no idea what dual-launched regimes means, but I’m sure it’s very very important to keep them from emanating from parts of the world etcetera.
In a little speech about the Middle East today, Bush said, “This is a moment of clarity for all Palestinians.” Bushies (especially Condi, who probably wrote that line) like to talk about moments of clarity, by which they mean events which should prove even to the complete morons who somehow didn’t already agree with them that they were right all along. The phrase “moment of clarity” betokens an unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of other interpretations of reality than their own. Or even to recognize the difference between interpretation and reality. In his Friday meeting with conservative journalists (which I discussed 2 posts ago), Bush said he will “remind my fellow citizens of what the consequences of failure [in Iraq] will be.” “Remind” is a word Bush frequently misuses in this way, to blur fact and opinion. You can remind people of something factual, such as that Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota, but not of a speculation about the future.
The moment of clarity for the Palestinians is that they must now understand that Hamas are evil, evil I tell you. And they can either follow Hamas, which would “guarantee chaos, and suffering, and the endless perpetuation of grievance... surrender their future to Hamas’s foreign sponsors in Syria and Iran, [and] crush the possibility of any -- of a Palestinian state” or they can follow Abbas’s “vision of a peaceful state called Palestine”. So “the Palestinian people must decide that they want a future of decency and hope -- not a future of terror and death.” Also, paper or plastic.
For no particular reason, here is Condi Rice during the Bush/Kaczynski meeting,
and during Bush’s speech on Palestine.
So lonely, so lonely.
Brother from another planet
Yesterday, the White House hosted a game of tee ball or, as Bush called it, baseball. The event also honored Jackie Robinson. One of the guests was Marc Morial, president of the Urban League. Here is how Bush addressed him: “Marc, how you doing, brother?” George is so down with the homies.
You don’t know what it’s like to be commander-in-chief until you’re commander-in-chief
Friday, Bush spoke for an hour with some conservative journalists, to encourage them to cheer-lead for the war. Since there’s no transcript, I’d hoped to read reports by participants before posting, but Michael Barone believes it was against the rules to directly quote Bush, so I’m left with the account by Kate O’Beirne and Rich Lowry, who have a different understanding of the rules.
He began by saying that everything would turn out okay because “I strongly believe that Muslims desire to be free just like Methodists desire to be free.” Of course (some) Muslims also desire to kill people with whom they have ideological differences, just like (some) Methodists do.
He claimed to understand the frustration of the American people with the war, but said he still has “tools” such as “the bully pulpit and the ability to convince the American people.” Awww, he thinks he still has the ability to convince the American people. Isn’t that adorable?
That was a rhetorical question.
O’Beirne & Lowry say Bush “marveled” at a question he was asked in last Thursday’s press conference: “They asked me yesterday ‘Are you sure it’s al Qaeda [in Iraq]?’ ‘Yeah, how do you know?’ ‘Because they swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden is how I know. Yeah, it’s al Qaeda.’” Quod erat demonstrandum. Really, sometimes you just have to marvel all over again at the shallowness of his thought processes.
Bush, they say, “talked of a ‘ground-up’ approach to reconciliation [in Iraq].”
He’d also like reconciliation here, a “bipartisan consensus” to keep troops in Iraq for “a while.” “We need to be in a position that can sustain a long-term troop presence.”
And where are those troops coming from, since we’re going to run out of fresh troops in spring? “People said we couldn’t find the troops for [the “surge”] as well.” So that proves that we can always find more troops if he wishes really hard. Or something. Anyway, that sort of thing is for the little people to deal with: “I’m sure that in the bowels of the Pentagon people are looking at troop rotations and troop movements, but that is not the primary objective of our commander on the ground – next question!” So the bowels of the Pentagon will simply shit out more cannon fodder.
It’s so very lonely at the top: “You don’t know what it’s like to be commander-in-chief until you’re commander-in-chief.”
Sunday, July 15, 2007
If somebody is worth shooting once, they’re worth shooting twice
Another corporal in Trent Thomas’s unit, Saul Lopezromo (who did not participate in the killing of Awad the Lame), testified that their unit had been criticized for not beating up enough Iraqis during their patrols. He also said that when Thomas shot Awad seven times after he had already been shot by others in the unit, he was engaging in what Marines call “dead-checking” (i.e., killing off the wounded rather than, say, providing medical care). “If somebody is worth shooting once, they’re worth shooting twice,” said the corporal, who said that dead-checking is routinely taught at Camp Pendleton boot camp. Um, someone might want to check into that.
He also said that shooting a random Iraqi was in fact “killing the enemy... Because of the way they live, the clans, they’re all in it together.” I see a bright career ahead of him in anthropology. Or genocide.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Awad the Lame, we hardly knew ye
The court-martial of Corp. Trent Thomas seems to be going pear-shaped. Prosecutors are saying that the murdered Iraqi may not have been Awad the Lame, although they’re also saying they have DNA evidence that he was, but they are changing his name on the charge sheet to “an unknown Iraqi.” I don’t know what that’s all about, and it doesn’t help that the only news source covering this case is the San Diego Union-Tribune. The defense is jumping on this confusion to claim that the guy killed in Awad the Lame’s home on the last day Awad the Lame was ever seen alive could have been anyone, even, Dum Dum DUMMMMM... an insurgent! Specifically, the cousin of the man the Marines intended to kidnap, frame and murder. Thomas’s lawyers seem to think that if the man his unit chose at random to kidnap, frame and murder when they couldn’t find the guy they wanted to kidnap, frame and murder was in fact an insurgent, then no crime was committed.
Is everyone ready? Then let’s begin.
In the weekly radio address, Bush said, “To begin to bring troops home before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for our country.” It used to be that we’d leave only after “victory.” Now, it’ll just be when we’re “ready.” And that judgement will be left to the people below him in the chain of command.
Another key word in that sentence: begin. It appears again a few sentences later: “Most Americans want to see two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops succeed, and they want to see our troops begin to come home.” Actually, I think most Americans want to see them actually come home. All of them. You, George, are the one who wants a permanent military presence.
In his press conference Thursday, Bush denied that Al Qaida is stronger now than it was before 9/11, but today he said that withdrawing from Iraq “would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda”. Dunno, seems to me that if that were true, then they’re at least a teensy bit stronger than they were six years ago.
Friday, July 13, 2007
$25 million? I don’t get out of bed for less than $40 million.
South Dakota resumes executions after 60 years.
Headline of the day, from the BBC: “Czech Castration Raises Worries.”
(Later): spoke too soon. Also from the BBC: “Pygmies Housed in Congo Zoo.”
The Senate voted to double the reward for the capture, dead or really, really dead, of Osama bin Laden, in case there was someone capable of doing that, but for whom $25 million was chump change.
Another New York Magazine competition. I only have three more. Does anyone have some old clippings (or a large stack of pre-2000 back issues in a closet somewhere) they’d like to share with the class?
11/1/99, new magazines.
Drunk Car & Driver.The last one is my addition, although if it had existed when the comp ran in 1999...
Roughage Digest.
Big Fat Bride.
Today’s Governess.
Rod Stewart Living.
Popular Creation Science.
Nouveau Riche.
Power Luncher.
Schadenfreude.
Online Boyfriend.
Too Much Money.
Trophy Wife.
Alternative Lifestyles Bi-Monthly.
Loo Magazine.
Ennui Enthusiast.
Hats and Cattle.
Osama Bounty Hunter Monthly.
The complete collection of New York comps here.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Bush press conference: respecting the command structure
Bush held a press conference today, and this time there were no 13-year-old girls for him to make cry.
Really, he didn’t have anything new to say, though his faith in his old material is touching. So you might want to just look at the pictures, which pretty much tell you everything you need to know about George W. Bush.
He attacked the integrity of everyone who disagrees with his assessment of the war in Iraq. “When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it will be good politics.” If you want to name the people you think are opposing the war because the pollster say it will be good politics, name them, otherwise just shut up. Also, a democracy doesn’t turn over its decisionmaking to its military commanders. (Indeed, he said that his waiting until David Petraeus reports in September before making any decisions is “respecting the command structure.”)
Congress, of course, is not actually in this command structure of which he speaks: “Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That’s their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops.”
Later a reporter asked why, when he failed to send enough troops initially, and did everything else wrong since then, we should believe he has the “vision for victory,” he said historians will analyze that, and then blamed Tommy Franks and the commanders, which I guess is what he means by respecting the command structure. “I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, do you have what it takes?”
It’s not just poll-watching politicians whose integrity he questions: “I understand why the American people are -- you know, they’re tired of the war. There is -- people are -- there is a war fatigue in America. It’s affecting our psychology.” Personally, I’m not tired of the war, because I was never bright-eyed and bushy-tailed about the war, but it’s just plain insulting to claim that those who turned against the war did so because their “psychology” was “affected,” that they have no rational basis for their views.
And when asked later about the unpopularity of the war, he said, “And of course I’m concerned about whether or not the American people are in this fight. I believe, however, that when they really think about the consequences if we were to precipitously withdraw, they begin to say to themselves, maybe we ought to win this, maybe we ought to have a stable Iraq.” See, they just haven’t really thought about the consequences. When they do that, obviously they’ll agree that he was right all along. You wait and see.
“I cannot look a mother and father of a troop in the eye and say, I’m sending your kid into combat, but I don’t think we can achieve the objective. I wouldn’t do that to a parent or a husband or wife of a soldier.” No, he’d lie to them.
Maybe he’s not really saying that everyone we’re fighting is a member of Al Qaida, but that they’re actually the same 19 guys over and over, taking over new bodies every time the old one is killed, like some crappy horror movie. Or he’s like one of those girls who keep dating guys just like their abusive fathers, or something: “And one of the reasons it is hard work is because on our TV screens are these violent killings, perpetuated by people who have done us harm in the past.” “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th”.
Asked specifically, “are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?” he responded: “Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden.” Er, not really the same thing.
IN OTHER WORDS: “There are still car bombs, most of which have the al Qaeda signature on them...” Look for the union label, when you are buying explosives or bombs. “...but they’re declining. In other words, so there’s some measurable progress.”
IN OTHER WORDS: “In other words, sectarian violence was really raging.”
On Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby etc, and whether he’s disappointed in the behaviour of any of his advisers: “I’m aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person, and I’ve often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, I did it.” Or if you’d actually asked them to do so. And... perhaps somebody in the administration disclosed her name? PERHAPS!?! “Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?” Remember when he claimed to hate leaks? Now the only thing he deplores about the whole affair is the “endless hours of investigation” it exposed his staff to. “But it’s been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House...” though not as tough for Scooter as it should have been, “and it’s run its course and now we’re going to move on.” Considering that at one point he makes fun of his father’s phrase “kinder and gentler,” what he just did is right out of Poppy’s Iran-Contra playbook: for years, Bush the Elder said that he’d love, really and truly love, to talk about his role in that, but there were still legal processes going on. When those were played out or thwarted by pardons, suddenly it was “old history” and not worth speaking about.
IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME: He said he would “consult with members of the Congress, both Republics and Democrats”. (The transcript says “Republicans.” The transcript lies.)
The Iraq benchmarks report, satisfactory progress, and the winds of Chamberlain
Israeli Minister of
The White House report on how Iraq is meeting those benchmarks is out, and rather than saying that Iraq has failed to meet any of the 18, it says that it’s “satisfactory” in 8, although its standards suggest that the Bush administration is very easily satisfied indeed. Mostly it achieves this by saying that “satisfactory progress” is being made towards the benchmark, which is as close to a meaningless standard as they could get. To be fair, this was the standard Congress asked for in the legislation mandating this report, which is therefore able to say “This report provides, consistent with the Act, an assessment of how the Iraqi Government is performing on 18 specified benchmarks, rather than the effects being generated.” So the tiniest move is considered progress, which is considered satisfactory. Sometimes just talking about it. While the progress towards achieving even-handedness by the security forces is rated satisfactory (but only because our standards are so very high), the government is praised because “Iraqi officials continue to communicate the importance that all terrorist organizations be targeted, regardless of their affiliation or ethnic background.” I think communication is so important, don’t you? The report adds coyly, “there remains one individual that Prime Minister Maliki has made the decision to delay targeting.”
One measure of success: “The [Anbar] provincial government -- for the first time in a year -- is now able to meet in the province”.
In other cases, it decides that the benchmarks are unimportant or even bad ideas, like amnesty (“there is no group for which amnesty would be appropriate”) or disarming the militias (“the necessary preconditions... such as political reconciliation and security provided by the government, do not yet exist”).
Many of the failed benchmarks are ones involving reconciliation, or the government ceasing to act in a sectarian fashion. These are deemed “lagging indicators,” a term I assume they focus-grouped and will be using often. This means that we shouldn’t take them as signs of failure because they will progress only after every last terrorist is hunted down and killed.
Bush’s press conference on this subject in my next post in a little bit. First, I have to lie down until that Neville Chamberlain image goes away.
Douchebag of the day
Lindsey Graham, yesterday, opposing a measure to give troops as much time out of combat zones as in them: “if you want to take care of the troops, let ‘em win.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
