If a humanistic Muslim speaks in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does he make any sound?

That said, good rebuttal and discussion in the comments. Also be sure to click through to read the interview itself:

On an uneventful day in the fall, a recent immigrant living in Oklahoma, who happens to be Muslim, sees Ayman Al Zawahiri spouting off on the frontpage of his local newspaper and decides to write a letter to the editor (may be available here instead). In his letter he condemns Al-Qaeda, suicide bombings and terrorism, and beseeches Muslims worldwide to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice in order to prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression. Then, out of nowhere, he is told by Muslim community leaders that unless he rescinds his article and publicly apologizes to the Muslim community at the Friday prayer he will not be welcome at the mosque which he has attended since moving to America in 2003. This man's name is Jamal Miftah.

Mr. Miftah graciously consented to speak with Eteraz.Org: States of Islam, the first interactive blog for Positive Muslim Activism.

Unsurprising:

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

See my post from 2004: The Next War is Already Here (It's the Same War)

Interesting anecdote: I recently sat down to dinner with a Persian family, entering a rowdy political discussion with the grandfather, a detractor of the Mullahs and fan of the Shah who still spends half the year in Iran, and his grandson, an Iranian-American raised in the States who dislikes the Mullahs, labeled the Shah a fool and described Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh as "Iran's Thomas Jefferson." Despite their differences, they agreed on three things:

1. The vast majority of Iranians in urban areas are very pro-Western, rural Iranians less so.

2. The Mullahs are awful and have no idea how to run an economy, much less a country. The elder gentleman went so far as to say that the US could (should) assassinate all of the mullahs and no one would care.

3. Perhaps surprisingly in light of the previous point, both strongly agreed that a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would turn much of the pro-West populace against the West. They characterized the Iranian nuclear program as analogous to Kennedy's space program, a point of severe national pride.

What a conundrum.

*** The only interesting link here, for science geeks only: how mauve changed the world. Includes a link to a patent application made by a refrigerator inventor who later became somewhat well known for something slightly different.*

*** I don't care for sports, but I think even non-sports fans will appreciate the tale of Dallas Clark. A commercial for a football video game was aired in which his digital simulacrum was shown being tackled. Thankfully, the makers have apologized and released a more appropriate "Director's Cut". (Watch the original first.)

*** Speaking of games, here's a unique online timewaster. At one point, I slipped the surly bonds of earth, and danced the skies on laughter-silvered paws; I chased the shouting wind along and flung my eager rat through footless halls of air. (via the Llamabutchers.)

*** One of the weirdest Star Trek: The Next Generation clips ever.

* I, um, warped the space time continuum. See comments.

More criticism of Thomas Ricks' presentation of the intelligence report by Marine Colonel Peter Devlin:

Somehow, the Washington Post has managed to distort the conclusions of a secret intelligence assessment on the situation in Anbar so grotesquely as to somehow morph Marine Corps Colonel Peter Devlin's recommendations for smashing al-Qaeda in Iraq into a fantastical military mea culpa, instead concluding that Devlin insists that it is impossible to defeat al-Qaeda or the insurgents.

Please forgive the self-reference, but in Distorting Marines As Martyrs, an attempt has been made to initiate a vigorous defense of Colonel Devlin, who in fact asserts that with another division (15k - 20k troops) and the Fallujafication of Ramadi, al-Qaeda can be defeated in Iraq.

An editorial from the Examiner:

President Bush was right to declare yesterday in Latvia that he will not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq until the "mission is complete" because "we can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren." It appears Bush's characteristic Texas stubbornness is the only thing standing between victory and the U.S. defeat that has all but been proclaimed by Washington's foreign policy establishment and its friends in the mainstream media like "60 Minutes" reporter Lara Logan. She insisted in her weekend interview with Gen. John Abizaid that "managing the defeat" is America's only option.

The emphasized portion explains a big motivation for security voters in the 2004 election. What strikes me as odd about withdrawal advocates - especially typically rational analysts like Stephen Sherman - is their downplay of the consequences of US defeat and disengagement. Yielding strategic dominance of the ME to Iran and giving Al Qaeda a base akin to Afghanistan in 2000 are such horrible options that they should immediately invalidate the concept of withdrawal and/or (generous) bargaining with the Mullahs to establish stability. This assessment grows even more powerful when one examines the relative sustainability of this conflict in blood and treasure; the former a chilly calculus that's nonetheless essential.

This is not to say that grim evaluations of the war are incorrect. Quite the contrary, and our government's failure to communicate the stakes, mobilize the population and enlarge the military might indeed make the worst outcomes inevitable. But I don't believe we've crossed that point of no return, and the media's herdlike proclamation of disaster ostensibly abetted by a continuing US presence animates immoral and impractical political pressure. Immoral, as it effectively advocates leaving Iraq to much greater slaughter in service of assuaging domestic political sensibilities. Impractical, as it endorses Iran's status as a sole regional superpower and Iraq as a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and its imitators.

In my estimation, all of these consequences make withdrawal or "managed defeat" non-starters for as long as our military can sustain a fight. In a scenario with no good options, abdication of basic American responsibility has got to be the worst.

UPDATE: I clarify some vague elements of my position in the second comment under this post. (Thanks to commenter jpok)

Roggio weighs in on the WaPo's latest report in a point-by-point analysis. A sample (last emphasis mine):

Claim: [Colonel Devlin] described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the "dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar," surpassing all other groups, the Iraqi government and U.S. troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."

Context: Al-Qaeda in Iraq is considered the "dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar" - among the insurgents. An intelligence source tells us al-Qaeda in Iraq controls a majority of the insurgency in Anbar. Some insurgent groups have opted to side with the tribes (the 1920s Revolution Brigade) or are on the fence (The Islamic Army of Iraq claim to be working with al-Qaeda but want to negotiate a settlement with the U.S.)

Concerning "[al-Qaeda's] ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni," this is referring to what is known as "the balance or terror." Al-Qaeda has instilled fear into the general Sunni population (particularly in Ramadi) and the Sunni tribes and Coalition forces are fighting to turn Al-Qaeda has effectively terrorized western Iraq since the fall of Saddam's regime. But they cannot operate in the open, or stand up to American, or even Iraqi military formations.

Read the whole thing.

Thomas Ricks reports a second pessimistic evaluation of the war in Western Iraq, based on a revision of the famously negative intelligence report written by Marine Col. Peter Devlin:

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that, as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same, the official said.

I've highlighted the line about Al Qaeda's ostensibly rising popularity because it's seemingly contradicted by multiple reports documenting Al Qaeda's loss of popularity. When the initial report was leaked and analyzed by Ricks in September, Bill Roggio wrote:

I've received plenty of questions about the intelligence report that claims Anbar province has been lost. I've talked to several sources in the military and intelligence who have actually seen the entire report (and not been fed excerpts). They are angry over the media's characterization of the report. Basically, the report indicated that the situation in Ramadi is dire, and that the political situation in Anbar as a whole as a result is in danger because of this.

Ramadi has been a problem for some time, but the major problem there has been the Iraqi government's lack ofpolitical will to act over the course of the last year. Even ceding the security situation to the tribes is a form of passing the problem on to the locals.

Since my sources were unwilling to go on the record, I chose not to address this directly. If the military community is unwilling to step up to the plate and defend itself, except in vague terms, about the situation in Ramadi then they will have to deal with the backlash of this decision. Good work has been and continues to be done in Anbar. The military has a problem with public affairs, plain and simple, and fails to realize that the impact on remaining silent on this report far outweighs the need to keep the information classified.

I've also spoken to Marines that express doubts about Ricks' characterization of the report; when I travel to Anbar, a goal of my coverage will focus on obtaining attributed commentary - affirmation or rebuttal - regarding this apparently dire intelligence assessment.

Below are headlines and excerpts from articles by Michael Fumento, Strategy Page, Bill Roggio, Greyhawk from Mudville and various UK Times correspondents that seem to at least contradict Ricks' angles that A) Anbar is lost and B) Al Qaeda is gaining rather than losing popularity among the local populace. Most of these reports track the evolution of the tribal war against AQ and the wider insurgency:

Read More »

Fine citizen journalism, over at Flopping Aces.

More here. Funniest comment:

Oh no, not the Associated Press! Next you'll be telling me that pro wrestling is fixed!

Equipment req and trip planning eating vast gobs of time. Not to mention work. Yeah, work.

I may be singlehandedly driving the military supply and portable electronics industries into a record 2006. My living room looks like D-Day+3 at Normandy.

Posts later.

*** An interview with a Royal Air Force pilot of a Lancaster bomber in 1944.

It's long but interesting, and there's also a podcast version if you'd prefer to listen.

*** Slain journalist Stephen Vincent is honored:

Last week in London, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent accepted her husband's posthumous award from the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in London. The award is in honor of and is named for Kurt Schork, who - like Steven Vincent - began his journalism career in his 40s after several previous careers, was respected for fact-based reporting free of ideology, and was killed in a war zone.

As I've mentioned before, Vincent's writing was terrific.

*** A fatwa against female genital mutilation:

The Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar, the oldest and most highly respected institution in Sunni Islam; and the Grand Mufti of Egypt have released an official fatwa declaring the practice of female circumcision (also called female genital mutilation or female genital cutting) un-Islamic. The decision was made at a conference hosted in Egypt and attended by Muslim clergy from around the world.

Read the rest here.

*** Despite the fact that I claim it as well, sometimes the righty blogosphere goes overboard with charges of liberal media bias. A critique of the MSM's financial reporting is not one of those times.

Nearly every piece of decent financial news over the last 6 years has displayed a dampened good or great news headline further undermined by a bad news subhead, a good news headline relegated to the subhead position or a good news headline buried in the second paragraph. I can't think of an area of the newspaper that's baffled or annoyed me more than the financial section.

Adding to the irony are pre-election analysts wondering aloud why voters perceive a bad economy ...

*** Florida Crackerism of the week:

Ain't that the way of it? You always find what you've been hunting in the very last place you look:

Click for context. (If you see no text, simply scroll down and quickly scroll back up; it will appear. For some reason, Donnah's site has formatting problems.)

First, the background: Casey Luskin, a well-known proponent of "Intelligent Design", decided to attack an article in National Geographic written by science writer Carl Zimmer. But Luskin seems to make a major slip-up in Part III of his attack:

Zimmer thus presents a straw-man argument against intelligent design, based upon his view that a designer must design things to withstand a certain type of malicious physical attack. This is not a scientific objection, but a theological objection. As a scientific theory, intelligent design does not require that systems always survive malicious physical beatings: as a science, ID requires the detection of specified complexity, and the moral purposes of the designer or the "perfection" of the design are irrelevant when determining whether an object was designed. But Carl Zimmer's personal theological views have no bearing upon the science of intelligent design. A more interesting question is, Why has National Geographic become a mouthpiece for a view of theology that states that a designer must design things to withstand certain types of physical attacks? (emphasis in original.)

Oops. Notice something there? You would if you'd read the National Geographic article first. Zimmer didn't mention theology. He does not describe the "Intelligent Designer" in religious terms. In fact, the only mention of the designer comes when he describes creationists as arguing "that such complexity must be the direct product of 'intelligent design' by a superior being." And that's it. It's not some sort of polemic, or a discussion of the religious motivations of ID proponents. Nope, he just mentions a designer and all of a sudden he's discussing theology,

Kind of a... peculiar "scientific" theory. Figuring out whether organisms were purposefully "designed" by an "intelligence" is supposedly scientific, but as soon as you wonder about who or what "designed" them, or wonder about the nature of the "intelligence" responsible, then you're talking theology.

There's the spirit of scientific inquiry for you. ID proponents doggedly try to limit themselves to whether or not design happened. The "who", "what", "when", "where", "how"... who cares about that?

(For more, you can follow the links at Zimmer's rebuttal to the rebuttal.)

Bill Adds: It's interesting that DaF brings this up, as I've been reading Richard Dawkins' new book, which attacks what he terms artificial barriers between religion and science. I actually tend to believe that some barriers are helpful, as the spiritual and scientific disciplines each have their place in the human condition, but the barrier between them is not as arbitrary as Dorkafork's target would have it; if one is willing to advance the proposition that life on Earth shows elements of design, it is a fairly natural scientific question to wonder about the nature of the intelligence and the designers of any designer. In this way, Dawkins describes Intelligent Design as creating a vicious infinite regress:

An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite series needed to provide such support could not be completed.

Distinction is made between infinite regresses that are "vicious" and those that are not. One definition given is that a vicious regress is "an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved. Not all regresses, however, are vicious." [1]

But more on this in a later post where I review the book. And take heart, religiously-inclined readers: Dawkins' obnoxiousness, ill-informed politics and even an aspect of his presentation of ID as a vicious infinite regress merit some heat as well.

The NYT's CJ Chivers continues great coverage from Anbar:

In the Marine Corps, snipers have long been a culture within the culture, a group of quiet, highly competent infantrymen selected for their field skills, self-discipline and shooting expertise.

Picked from the ranks, they are trained at a 10-week school that develops their skills in hiding, stalking and long-range marksmanship. Each infantry battalion has a platoon of snipers, who typically work in small teams apart from the rifle companies. They are considered elite.

But some snipers now worry that the difficulties they face have been compounded by rules and conditions placed on them by senior military leaders.

Marine snipers have customarily trained to work in two-man teams who hide and stalk for days, seeking targets a half-mile or more away. Often an area might be saturated with snipers, so they can support and protect one another while confusing an enemy force with different angles of fire.

This way, according to their thinking, they can kill more enemy combatants, and sow more fear.

Those two-man teams are not allowed in Iraq, in part because of the killings of two groups of snipers earlier in the war.

I found this quote notable:

He said snipers were willing to assume the risk of traveling in pairs. "It's a war," he said. "People are going to die, and the American public needs to get over that. They need to get over that and let us do our job."

Patterico investigates the L.A. Times' coverage of a supposed airstrike in Ramadi, coverage that uncritically cited witnesses claiming large civilian casualties. His post is an eminently fair look at the flaws in the Times' reporting:

In the end, I was unable to determine whether the e-mailing soldier was correct when he claimed that the L.A. Times is relying on propaganda supplied by a stringer with ties to insurgents.

However, I can say this: the journalists at the L.A. Times 1) have utterly failed to report the full extent of the military's side of the story; 2) very likely got some basic facts about the incident wrong; and 3) have done an extremely poor job of explaining the possible limitations on their knowledge - what I like to call "telling the reader what you don't know as well as what you do know."

"What American journalists should be thankful for"

The Times' Martin Fletcher on Ramadi:

While the world's attention has been focused on Baghdad's slide into sectarian warfare, something remarkable has been happening in Ramadi, a city of 400,000 inhabitants that al-Qaeda and its Iraqi allies have controlled since mid-2004 and would like to make the capital of their cherished Islamic caliphate.

A power struggle has erupted: al-Qaeda's reign of terror is being challenged. Sheik Sittar and many of his fellow tribal leaders have cast their lot with the once-reviled US military. They are persuading hundreds of their followers to sign up for the previously defunct Iraqi police. American troops are moving into a city that was, until recently, a virtual no-go area. A battle is raging for the allegiance of Ramadi's battered and terrified citizens and the outcome could have far-reaching consequences.

Ramadi has been the insurgency's stronghold for the past two years. It is the conduit for weapons and foreign fighters arriving from Syria and Saudi Arabia. To reclaim it would deal a severe blow to the insurgency throughout the Sunni triangle and counter mounting criticism of the war back in America.

Excerpt and link via Bill Roggio, who continues his analytical series on "The Anbar Tribes vs. al-Qaeda:"

Lost in the current debate over Iraq - civil war or sectarian violence, success or failure, increasing troops or strategic redeployment, victory or defeat - is the sea-change occurring in western Iraq. The U.S. military has coaxed a large majority of the Sunnis of Anbar province, perhaps one of the most sympathetic groups to al-Qaeda in the Middle East, to turn on al-Qaeda. The choice wasn't difficult after the tribes saw what al-Qaeda had to offer - death, torture, Taliban like sharia, humiliation, destruction of commerce. The relationship and intelligence gained form operating in western Iraq will benefit the west during the Long War - if the U.S. doesn't withdrawal precipitously and leave the Anbar tribes to the predations of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Read the rest.

UPDATE: More from Mudville.

And I'm not sure why. We've been getting hit with massive amounts of trackback and comment spam, so that might be the cause. If anyone has any technical insight on how to address this, drop me a line. Thanks. (I'm going to work on it as well, but I would also welcome suggestions. -dorkafork)

Also, please note that the promised post about embed coverage angles has been bumped 'till next week.

Blogging will be light through the holiday weekend. Happy Thanksgiving.

Scott King runs into "shared humanistic values" while talking to his Muslim guide:

One of the highlights of my trip was an evening spent with The General, two other contractors working with us, and our guide Mohamed. After dinner at Mohamed's riad, the conversations drifted toward my two favorite subjects - politics and religion. During much of the preceding week, Mohamed had punctuated his commentary on the region with not so subtle plugs for Islam. I must say that this was the first time I've ever been witnessed to by a Muslim. While the experience may sound altogether horrible to some, I must say that I was impressed by his passion and humility, not to mention the fact that his is just a nice guy, a good family man, trying to improve what he can within his sphere of influence.

Now listen, I know what you're thinking, but rest assured - I have not changed my name to "Hamid" and declared Jihad.

This is fantastic news, as I shudder to think of the damage a former Navy SEAL could do for jihad. Moving on:

But I did hear, for the first time, a bona-fide Muslim tell me that what some folks have been doing in the name of Allah is dead wrong. That's right, a real Muslim condemning terrorism. Mohamed went so far as to say that the people doing this are not Muslims. The General agreed, he has seen first hand the effects that the terrorists have had upon his country and has seen the benefit of the aid the US has given to Egypt to help them fight this scourge. What was discouraging though is the perspective I found among other, less learned folks.

No, it's not all good. Read the whole thing.

Previous:

Read More »

*** "The lazy Thanksgiving edition" of RINO Sightings is up at Right Thoughts.

*** Eteraz pans the concept of "Western values:"

IMHO, the idea of a "western" state is an illusion - there are only liberal states and illiberal states, defining a continuum between them.

I think my answer is better than the contortions that most have to go through to include America, but to exclude (for example) Japan. What do you all think?

I think that he's correct in modern practice, but neglects that the label is a function of origin and history rather than accurate rhetorical representation of something like Japanese democracy. Yes, significant components of modern liberalism have been found in non-Western cultures, but only in the de facto, traditional "West" (from Greece to England and America, most recently and notably) did a unique set of factors coalesce into the dominant modern values associated with the term. It's merely a word, a description. If Ali would like to rename "Western values" as liberalism to soothe cultural sensibilities and strive for descriptive accuracy, go for it. I think the argument itself can get a tad semantic. But I'm an intractable ethnocentrist.

Next Up: Why do they call Iceland "Iceland" and Greenland "Greenland," when Iceland is green and Greenland is icey?!

*** Gay marriage advocates must cringe at items like this:

Polygamists Fight to Be Seen As Part of Mainstream Society

In her battle to legalize polygamy, the only thing Valerie hasn't revealed is her last name. The mother of eight has been on national TV; her photo along with that of her two "sister-wives" has graced the front cover of a glossy magazine dedicated to "today's plural marriages."

I've previously elucidated why I believe comparisons between gay marriage and polygamy are a bit strained, but that story sure animates the slippery slope argument in the public consciousness. It's HBO's fault.

*** Polar bear eats SeaWolf:

A nuclear-powered attack submarine does look delicious. Like a huge frosted Ding-Dong sporting Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles.

Like a Hostess snack cake of Freedom.

(Via Tim Blair)

The Atlantic:

Who are the most influential figures in American history? The Atlantic recently asked ten eminent historians. The result was The Atlantic's Top 100 - and some insight into the nature of influence and the contingency of history. Was Walt Disney really more influential than Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Benjamin Spock than Richard Nixon? Elvis Presley than Lewis and Clark? John D. Rockefeller than Bill Gates? Babe Ruth than Frank Lloyd Wright? Let the debates begin.

Conservatives will be pleased (I think) that Ronald Reagan made number 17 on the list. I personally think that Robert Oppenheimer (48) and James D. Watson (68) were more influential than, say, Jackie Robinson (35) and Walt Disney (26). George Marshall also probably rates higher than 63, as he might be the greatest public servant in American history.

But number one? You know who it is, and it's hard to argue with the selection.

A lot of new folks have dropped by in the past week because of the impending trip, and many of them are unfamiliar with my citizen journalism focus in '04. That's right, it wasn't always "Quick Links" and Youtube videos.

For a short primer on the INDC of yore, the curious can check out this post. Blog-formatted coverage in Iraq will be similar, with less politics, more video and at least as much photography and verbatim interviews.

I'll be discussing planned coverage in much more detail over the next couple of days, as well as soliciting requests.

Michael Fumento writes about his recent trip to Ramadi in the Weekly Standard:

The military says Ramadi "remains the most contentious city right now inside Iraq."

For this very reason, Ramadi is both a litmus test for the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq and a laboratory. If we can defeat the insurgent and terrorist forces here, there is no place we cannot defeat them. And from what I found, we are defeating them. It's painfully slow, and our men there are still dying in inordinate numbers from a broad variety of attacks. But a multitude of factors, including tribal cooperation, the continual introduction of more Iraqi army and police, the beginning of public works projects, the building of more Forward Operating Bases (FOBs), the installation of more small operational posts (OPs), and plunking down company-sized Combat Operation Posts (COPs) smack in the middle of hostile territory are destroying both the size and the mobility of the enemy. This time the rats are dying in place.

As they say, RTWT.

Travel dates are finalized: I'll be flying to Kuwait City on December 26th, arriving the evening of the 27th. Once in Kuwait, it will take between one to five days to get my passport stamped and manifest on an Air Force flight to Baghdad (hopefully only a day or two). After registering with the Combined Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad, it will be a Blackhawk to Ramadi. It's my goal to be filing reports from Anbar by January 1. Michael Fumento has had both very good and very bad experiences with this process. Thus far, my dealings with the personnel arranging travel have been pretty smooth and helpful, so I'm optimistic.

Embeds are encouraged by CPIC to take this route, and after weighing the alternatives, it's the best option. Another path is to fly commercially to Jordan and also hop an Air Force flight to Baghdad. The military flies less frequently out of Jordan (two days per week vs. five), so this very well might take longer. And the third way in (practiced by mainstream journalists not embedded with the military) is to fly into Jordan, then take a short commercial flight into Baghdad International Airport. This has two drawbacks:

1. The military does not arrange secure travel from the airport to CPIC for commercial travelers, necessitating the assistance of a private security firm. I'd rather rely on the military: helicopter, Rhino or nada:

Rhino Runner is a type of armoured bus used extensively in Iraq, especially on the infamous Route Irish between Baghdad International Airport and The Green Zone. It is a customized vehicle created by Labock Technologies, with configurations for various purposes. Duties include normal transport of civilian contractors and military personnel, and usage by VIPs, including transport of prisoners involved in the Iraqi Special Tribunal.

It also looks like it'd be great for tailgating.

2. I was informed by a PAO that the Iraqi government now requires all commercial visitors to receive an HIV test at an Iraqi hospital before departure. My instinctive respect for foreign health care and (potentially) Sadrist facilities aside, I'll pass.

The trip will extend through the entire month of January, with a return date subject to the whims of fate and the ability to score expedient transport while in Iraq. Stay tuned.

This weekend I had the pleasure of finally meeting my arch-blog-nemesisisisi: the Llamabutchers. I attended their regular anniversary party in the distant wilds of Virginia. The small gathering consisted of Rob, Mrs. Rob, Steve, Professor Chaos, Jen from Lintefiniel Musings and her husband. Impressions:

*** Robbo does not, as I'd always assumed, sound like Frasier Crane. He's slightly calmer and gentler than his blog persona, and comes off like a genuinely nice fella.

I could certainly take him in a fight, that's for sure.

*** Robbo's wife is very pretty and charming. Not to mention patient, as she kindly put up with endless talk about blogs. I don't think Robbo would argue with the assessment that he's punching above his weight-class in the romance department. "Better half?" More like "better four-fifths."

*** Professor Chaos is an actual professor at a real, relatively prestigious school (specifically in his field). One might imagine my surprise, given his pseudonym's South Park origins.

*** Steve is almost exactly as one might picture from reading his writing, excepting no rubber chicken, he did not enliven a harmless variation of Jack Nicholson's performance from the Shining and was not, in fact, twelve.

*** Jen and her Beau were extremely nice. Their pleasant conversation presented a good foil to the barely bridled mischief radiating from the other end of the table.

*** Rachel Wiesz, Maureen Dowd, Maria Bello and other sneakily promised guests did not show up. What can I say? Tricky Llamas.

Good times, good times.

*** But first, a mini-review of Casino Royale, by me. (The review is by me I mean, I didn't make the movie.)

1) Daniel Craig isn't James Bond. He is just not.
2) Whatever the hell he is, is pretty good.

Casino Royale is better than the last half dozen Bond films combined. (The writing in particular is quite good.) In a way it's similar to the new Battlestar Galactica: different from the original, but really good.

*** I could do this, but I don't want to:

*** Name that tune! (Doesn't really start till about a minute in.)

(both videos from Huderon via Fark.)

* Warning: "Random Weekend Links" may not contain actual links.

"The bottom-up plan to defeat the insurgency."

*** A "Moderate Muslim" (or "Humanistic Muslim," as Ali prefers to be called) does something about Islamic reform:

At my regular blog which you came to know and love, and which was fortunate to be nominated for an International Best of the Blogs award, Unwilling Self-Negation, I sought to bring pertinent issues of Islamic reform to the forefront of new media. Now I have tried to take the 'next step.' I have, therefore, launched the first truly interactive and truly global blog community (complete with reader diaries) about Islam. It is called Eteraz.Org: States of Islam.

Not only will I be talking about these important issues but so will three of the most promising writers on Islamic Reform, a novelist and PhD candidate from Columbia University and the most honored blogger within the WesternMuslim blogosphere, a NYT and Atlantic Monthly published writer, script-writer and resident of Cairo, and a British-Muslim blogger.

At Eteraz.org , I am taking the goal of humanist Islam a step further: connecting these ideas with the activists, journalists, academics and concerned citizens who can put them into practice. From dialogue to grassroots social work, Eteraz.org will serve as a hub of Islamic reform on the web.

Good for him.

*** Milton Friedman has died. Watch him give "the best case for limited government ever made."

*** Christopher Hitchens nails an underappreciated finding of the Borat movie (and TV skits):

Borat reveals the painful politeness of American society.

I've thought the same thing myself. With notable exceptions (like the owner of a big-game hunting preserve agreeing that it would be cool to "hunt Jews"), many of the individuals that Borat sends up actually show quite a bit of patience and class. While Hitchens is correct that this politeness undermines one aspect of the joke (spoofing the targets as malignant fools), watching Cohen stumble around while nice people exercise patience still has its moments. So on some level, dumb humor usually works for me. For example ...

*** ... Donnah busts my chops.

*** Friday Night Lights Fights: a brawl breaks out at a Pee-Wee Football game. Keep an eye on the woman in the navy blue "Davila 59" jersey as she sneakily runs up and kicks another woman into the melee (00:46 in).

Appeals for more troops and resources in Iraq have been well-documented on this site, including here, here and here. I wrote about a Pentagon dust-up over underfunding in that last link:

I've been wondering recently about the Administration's practical commitment to winning Iraq, given apparently insufficient troop levels. Do we simply lack the personnel? Has the Administration been unwilling to invest in a requisite build-up?
...
One might hope that this underfunding is a long-term component of pre-midterm politicking regarding the deficit (and thus due to expire in November), though I'm not holding my breath.

Did the midterm elections have an impact on the politically sensitive settlement of the question of "phased withdrawal" vs. "stay the course" vs. "double down?" The Guardian is reporting that the Administration will attempt a post-election version of the latter strategy:

US plans last big push in Iraq

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Note that they're only talking 20,000, which again raises the question about how thinly stretched the military really is, and how much the sparse resources in Iraq are a consequence of a practically diminished two war doctrine and a failure to fundamentally retool the military for the current mission. Why didn't the Administration (through Congress) use the past 3-5 years to restructure the composition of the service branches to meet the needs of an occupation, insurgency and massive reconstruction project? The answer for planning in 2001 to late-2003 is simple: they didn't anticipate a long insurgency and occupation. For late-2003 and beyond, I have no idea.

Of course, one argument consistently lays the blame on Donald Rumsfeld and his commitment to a doctrine of flexibility, speed, lethality and technological force multipliers. To wit, read this scathing speech by former Commanding General of US and allied forces in Kuwait and Chief of War Plans in the Pentagon Mitchell Zais:

Let me begin by saying that most of our problems in Iraq stem from a flawed strategy that has been in place since the beginning of the war.
...
Our strategy in Iraq has been:

1. fight the war on the cheap;

2. ask the ground forces to perform missions that are more suitably performed by other branches of the American government;

3. inconvenience the American people as little as possible, and

4. continue to fund the Air Force and Navy at the same levels that they have been funded at for the last 30 years while shortchanging the Army and Marines who are doing all of the fighting.

No wonder the war is not going well.

Let me explain how the war is being fought on the cheap.

From the very beginning, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who thankfully announced his departure yesterday, has striven to minimize the number of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Instead of employing the Colin Powell doctrine of "use massive force at the beginning to achieve a quick and decisive victory," his goal has been "use no more troops than absolutely necessary so we can spend defense dollars on new technology."
...
The Defense Department has fought the war on the cheap because, despite overwhelming evidence that the Army and Marine Corps need a significant increase in their size in order to accomplished their assigned missions, the civilian officials who run the Pentagon have refused to request authorization from Congress to do so. Two Democratic representatives, Mark Udall from Colorado and Ellen Tauscher of California, have introduced a bill into Congress that would add 80,000 troops to the end-strength of the active Army. Currently, this bill has no support from the Defense Department.

Similar critiques of Rumsfeld's dogged attitudes about his brand of military transformation and confidence in a short occupation were featured in a surge of pre-election books on Iraq, like George Packer's ideological yet excellent Assassin's Gate, the dry, analytical Cobra II and Ricks' aggressive (and perhaps suspect) Fiasco. I don't rush to take these negative portraits at face value, but the mounting number of stories about the Pentagon's misjudgments or reliance on a speedy removal of Saddam with few occupation duties or contingency plans has gained critical mass. And certain known quantities - like the fact that Coalition troops didn't have explicit orders to enforce martial law once authority melted in Baghdad, for example - lend credence to the case that serious miscalculations were made in the planning for post-Operation Iraqi Freedom, from the tactical, operational and (primarily) strategic levels.

And the fundamental question remains: given that current military spending as a percentage of GDP is below levels of spending during the first Gulf War, the Reagan defense build-up, Vietnam and Korea, ("The Sustainable Economics of War") why is this Administration not pushing Congress for a level of investment necessary to win out the critical strategic gambles in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as make ready for the next conflict?

Given this persistent question, while I have mixed feelings about the competence and tenure of Donald Rumsfeld, I'm glad to see a change at the Pentagon. I'm also glad to see that the Administration may be looking to boost force levels in Iraq in the short term. But problematically, the extra troops may have been much more useful this last year, as keeping a lid on the sectarian violence which flared after the bombing of Al-Askari Mosque would have perhaps saved enough leaky political capital to ensure the creation of sustainable Iraqi security forces. We'll see if we can still get it done with high-profile members of a Democratic Congress eager for withdrawal.

Note: Any links on a comprehensive look at our current force structure within the context of Afghanistan, Iraq and conflicts TBD are appreciated. E-mail or drop a comment.

UPDATE: Some related links on troop levels:

Doubling Down in Iraq (pro-increase)

Effects of troop numbers in Iraq (neutral - stats analysis)

Troops, Tropes, and Traditions (anti-increase)

I'll address two aspects of the last article, written by Dave Price:

1. Dave writes:

Aside from the point made by General Abizaid yesterday (that a troop increase could be detrimental to ISF training as it disincentivizes them to learn to handle the problem themselves) there are three problems with the assumptions and methods of both these analyses.

At Abizaid's level and position, he is part military commander and part politician/representative of the policy. I would hesitate to take his assessment at face value, though I still find it significant.

2. Dave also writes:

Three, reducing violence is not our primary goal, nor should it be. What is most important is that Iraq's constitutional democracy be defended, and that responsibility for that defense be gradually transitioned to capable, committed Iraqi hands.

On this point (and the bits surrounding it), Dave and I agree. But the goal of reducing violence isn't merely important for the sake of reducing violence, it's also a key lever in our domestic political process. Many insurgents are killing to drive us out of Iraq by influencing American public opinion. Thus, one of the ends of reducing violence is sustaining American political will to create the " capable, committed Iraqi" security forces that Dave cites as the real goal.

I was remiss in not expressing gratitude to a few people who were very helpful over the past few months.

First, thanks to Michelle Malkin for her contacts and a recommendation. Despite our rotating agreements and disagreements on a variety of political issues (sprinkled with a few one-way zingers from me), Michelle has always been unfailingly kind and supportive of me in the real world. Frankly, it's a bit odd.

I'll figure out your angle, Michelle Malkin. I'll figure out your angle.

Second, sincere gratitude to Mark Tapscott, blogger and editorial page editor of the Washington Examiner, for the opportunity to produce material for that great paper. It was a hoot finally meeting Mark in person, as he's sort of the central casting version of a stand-up, patriotic American. I mean that as a compliment, but I'd best shut up before some of his colleagues in the newspaper industry excommunicate him from the biz.

And finally, huge thanks to Bill Roggio, who has been quite supportive, informative and basically essential during the planning and application process. Bill's been there and done that (and will again in a couple of weeks), and his superb analysis of the war on terror's various fronts, battles, politics, strategies and tactics is about the best out there. Roggio's work is everything that MSM analysis should be. Bill is also soliciting support for his trip.

A generic shout out goes to the dedicated and patient Public Affairs Officers whom I've dealt with - singling out USMC MAJ Jeffrey Pool and CAPT Paul Duncan - and thanks to my readers and new visitors for the kind support of the project. Feeling ... verklempt.

... light posting alert today. Perhaps DaF will bless us with some quick links.

Bill Roggio will be on the radio in about an hour discussing Iraq.

Click on through for the online stream.

"Semi-autonomous region woos the West with high-profile ad campaign:"

While other parts of Iraq remain mired in unrest, the northern region known as Kurdistan is touting itself as an oasis and aggressively courting businesses and tourists.

The push for development includes a Western-style advertising strategy with ads on cable TV, in radio and magazines, and a new investment law approved by the region's National Assembly to attract money from foreign investors. The region's economy already is one of the strongest in the Middle East.

Despite the inevitable negative caveats that follow in that report, Kurdistan really is a remarkable success story, one that highlights the disparity between Arab political, religious and economic problems** and success stories in other parts of the Middle East and greater Islamic world.

Heck, the Kurds even have genuinely moderate Islamists. Not merely Muslims; Islamists.

Despite the naysaying about the war and the uncertainty of success in the rest of Iraq, the liberation of the Kurds from the spectre of Saddam Hussein is a rather consequential and lasting victory.

** Fareed Zakaria does a great job in covering the unique problems of the Arab world in chapter 4 of "The Future of Freedom," btw.

*** Rudy's in!

You know where I stand.

*** Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive appreciates the first few days of Dem domination:

If I thought Congress was really supposed to do important things this would be truly sad, but I don't and consequently will sit back giggling and watch the rest of the clown car empty.

*** Red meat intake has been linked to increased rates of breast cancer:

Younger women who eat red meat regularly appear to face an increased risk for a common form of breast cancer, according to a large well-known Harvard study of women's health.

The study of more than 90,000 women found the more red meat the women consumed when they were in their 20s, 30s and 40s the greater their risk for getting breast cancer fueled by hormones in the next 12 years. Those who consumed the most red meat faced nearly twice the risk of those who ate red meat infrequently.

Why?

The reason why red meat might increase the risk for breast cancer remains unknown, but previous research has suggested several possible reasons: Substances produced by cooking meat may be carcinogenic; naturally occurring substances in meat may mimic the action of hormones, or hormones farmers feed cows to make them grow bigger could fuel breast cancer in women who consume meat from the animals.

I'd stress the last on that list, plus add two more items:

1. Red meat is high in animal fat, which is associated with an inflammation reaction in the body. Inflammation plays a role in spurring cancer.

2. Red meat intake might be positively correlated with obesity, and obesity is associated with chronic inflammation, and cancer.

All epidemiological researchers reading this blog: get cracking.

*** And finally, a succinct, powerful case for capital punishment as a deterrent:

"Ten Spammers Create 80 Percent Of Spam"

Am I kidding about using the death penalty? Maybe. But it's a close call.

Dorkafork develops a plot for "DeathWish 419: Deleting Spam... *PERMANENTLY*!"

"You punk, you spammed my family. It's people like you that make good honest people afraid to surf the web at night."

To celebrate Veteran's Day, Donnah posted some great pictures of her dad and linked the story of Medal of Honor recipient Tibor Rubin. I always enjoy reading these stories, inspirational as they inevitably are, but this one ... well, let's just say that this one takes the cake. The transcript of the President's remarks from the ceremony floored me:

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for bravery that a President can bestow. It is given for acts of valor that no superior could rightly order a soldier to perform. And that is what we mean by "above and beyond the call of duty." By repeatedly risking his own life to save others, Corporal Rubin exemplified the highest ideals of military service and fulfilled a pledge to give something back to the country that had given him his freedom.

Born in Hungary in 1929, Ted and his family were rounded up by the Nazis and taken to concentration camps when he was just 13 years old. He was taken to Mauthausen Camp in Austria, where an SS officer told the prisoner, "You, Jews, none of you will ever make it out of here alive." And many did not. Before the war was over, both of Ted's parents and one of his sisters were lost in the Holocaust. Ted Rubin survived the camp for 14 months, long enough to be liberated by U.S. Army troops on May the 5th, 1945.

These American GIs gave Ted his first real taste of freedom. Their compassion for the people in the camp made a deep impression on this teenage survivor. It was his first experience with soldiers who were fighting to protect human life. That day Ted made a promise to himself, if he ever made it to America, he would show his appreciation to this great land by enlisting in the United States Army. He did move to America after the war, and the young immigrant made good on his pledge. Even though he was not yet a citizen, he volunteered to serve his new nation in uniform, and seven months after taking the oath of a U.S. soldier, he was sent to Korea.

Read the rest. You'll be thankful if you do.

Starting in very late December, I'll be traveling to Western Iraq to embed with the Marines, publishing both independent blog items and op-eds for the Washington Examiner. Specific destinations (thus far) include Ramadi, Habbaniyah (the headquarters of the Iraqi First Army and several IA boot camps), Fallujah and Baghdad. Prioritized is an embed with Military Transition Teams advising First and Seventh Iraqi Army units:

A Military Transition Team, MiTT is a U.S. Army or Marine elite team that embeds and trains with the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Police, the Afghan National Army and other allies in the War on Terror. MiTTs advise the fledgling security forces in the areas of intelligence, communications, fire support, logistics and infantry tactics. The aim is to make the Iraqi unit (at battalion, brigade, or division level) self-sustainable tactically, operationally and logistically so that the battalion is prepared to take over responsibility for battle space. Also, MiTTs can, if necessary, call in U.S. air support and battle assistance, thus boosting confidence and troop morale. In Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the transition teams are a central part of the strategy to train and equip national security forces, hand over battle space and reduce Coalition troop levels. MiTTs also report misconduct and allow the U.S. Military to monitor the level of professionalism of the fledgling security force.

A look at the training, motivation and competence of Iraqi Army units primed to assume responsibility for security in Anbar - one of the two critical theatres in Iraq - should contribute to an accurate assessment of the war's progress. I have a month budgeted for the trip, with 1- 2 weeks still open for to-be-determined embed opportunities that arise while in country. There are a variety of reasons that I'm going, but a fairly compelling one is curiosity coupled with dissatisfaction about the present coverage of the war. This negative impression was reinforced by a surprising Pajamas Media item published in September:

Pajamas Media, in the course of a casual conversation with a Marine Corps information officer who tracks the number of embedded reporters in Iraq, learned the real number of embedded reporters covering the Iraq story on September 19, 2006. It was, according to the officer, a fairly typical day. To illustrate his point, he provided Pajamas Media with the illustration he uses to brief with on the state of media embedding in Iraq.

What was that number? Take a guess and then see the truth. No peeking.

If you guessed 9 reporters, you guessed right.

Thus, in addition to providing shallow, slanted updates on the war, the overwhelming majority of mainstream media outlets are failing to present the essential perspectives of military embeds at a pivotal time in the conflict. The Examiner is compensating me for certain pieces, but this will not cover my initial expenditures, which include a satellite modem, satellite phone rental, new toughbook laptop, body armor and lots more. So if you'd like to support citizen journalism, please consider donating to help fund my trip: