GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD

Blunt Warnings

2009-07-17T10:01:00.003-04:00

"We want the Haqqanis to know we will hit them anywhere"

Haqqanis' are blood sworn enemies of Great Satan and have been fittingly functioning as Hellfire missile magnets for a while now.

Haqqanis are closely allied with the Taliban and al Qaeda, and have close links with the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan's creepy secret military intelligence agency. Haqqanis run a parallel government in North Waziristan and conduct military and suicide operations in eastern Afghanistan.

And they have a prize - an American soldier.

Leaflets handed out to locals contained this blunt warning: "If you do not free the American soldier then you will be hunted."

Great Satan has been heavily criticized by the Afghan government for civilian deaths - 900 have died this year alone. Officials say the new message is not meant to scare the local population. - au contraire!

Consider it a friendly give and take - for now - the killing and scaring are actually quite dependent on what Haqqani does next.

2 leaflets, one scary, threatening with an uparmored super soldier smashing in the door to a humble abode and one fun and friendly with GI's hanging out and having fun with the locals, could be seen as a good cop, bad cop routine.

Great Satan makes no apology for her rather blunt tactics.

If any one is offended - so what?

Great Satan wants her son back.

Now.

"Lead With Diplomacy"

2009-07-16T00:00:00.000-04:00

Great Satan's Madame Sec o' State -- HRC -- shared a few ideas at CFR before she departs for sunny sunny climes east of Suez.

Several interesting bits - Palestine, NoKo and this especial clarion to Iran that Diplomacy may be the first choice of 44's Admin -- but the op for it won't be around forever:

"Lead with diplomacy, even in the cases of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We believe that doing so advances our interests and puts us in a better position to lead with our other partners. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage.
"Yet some suggest that this is a sign of naiveté or acquiescence to these countries’ repression of their own people. I believe that is wrong. As long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table.
"Negotiations can provide insight into regimes’ calculations and the possibility – even if it seems remote – that a regime will eventually alter its behavior in exchange for the benefits of acceptance into the international community. Libya is one such example. Exhausting the option for dialogue is also more likely to make our partners more willing to exert pressure should persuasion fail.

"With this in mind, I want to say a few words about Iran. We watched the energy of Iran’s election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, and then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign journalists and nationals, and expelling them, and cutting off access to technology.
" As we and our G-8 partners have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable.

"We know very well what we inherited with Iran, because we deal with that inheritance every day. We know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran’s treatment of its citizens.

"Neither the President nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.

"Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. That is why we offered Iran’s leaders an unmistakable opportunity: Iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.

"Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear.
"We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.

Art - "Diplomacy" by PG7

Assassins

2009-07-14T09:08:00.002-04:00

It's true! In those scary scary days right after 911 -- when kids were learning new uncool words like Al Qaeda, Anthrax, Sniper, WMD and Taleban, Great Satan's spy guys were gearing up to put the vent into unconventional warfare.

Targetting al qaeda cats and hopefully super villan OBL himself with two shots in the head -- each.

This is significant. Cats along side the cat at the center of the storm -- then CIA chief Geo Tenet -- dreamed up plans to insert righteous payback in the form of Great Satan's trained killers right in the face of the enemy -- literally.

"Officials at the spy agency over the years ran into myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles. How could the role of the United States be masked?

"Should allies be informed and might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets? What if American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an operation?

"Would such activities violate international law or American restrictions on assassinations overseas?

Godfather style hits -- where some creep's brains may get splattered "...all over your nice Ivy League suit..." are in fact way more “surgical” surgically solution wise in eliminating terrorists than missile strikes with armed Predator drones, against creeps deploying innocent, intelligent human shielding that alas -- occasionly resulted in dozens of civilian casualties.

Actually -- seems that drones gone wild -- sweetly and concurrently under way are the spiritual relatives of hit teams that allow their enemys to actually see them and realize in the last seconds of a hateful wasted life that certain activities are like magnets for certain reactive activites.

Though the plan was never carried out -- tons of legit and stupid concerns like those noted above -- the leaking of such ideas -- never totally taken off the shelf -- serves to remind friends and enemies alike that when Great Satan gets riled up -- she is kinda crazy and unpredictable.

Art - "Assassins of the Great Satan" by 4th Wall Theatre

Ambush

2009-07-13T09:53:00.004-04:00

Way back when Surge was getting crunk up, Mullahoplis stepped up the deployment of agents of mayhem and murder -- collectively known as the Revo Guards 'Al Quds Force" -- to assist their boy Elroy -- Mookie Al Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia in an attempt to caliphate Iraq into a theocrazy -- not unlike Persia's.

In January '07, five Iranian agents fell right into Great Satan's clutches in Kurdistan's Irbil city. Iran claimed the cats were part of a diplomatic mission in Irbil, and protested the arrest. The men were operating from a liaison office that, alas, enjoyed no diplomatic privileges.

Fittingly enough, the Irbil 5 promptly disappeared -- hopefully made uncomfortable and subjected to leisurely, thorough and intense interrogations.

"The five detainees are connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – Qods Force (IRGC-QF), an organization known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the Government of Iraq and attack Coalition forces"

The "Bad Bad Basra" campaign against Iran's terror network in Iraq kicked off with the capture of Iranian agents in Baghdad in December 2006 and the detention of the Qods Force agents in Irbil the following month. Great Satan and the New Iraq Army guys cracked down hard on the Ramazan Corps, the command set up by Qods Force to direct operations inside Iraq.

The campaign culminated in a major operation led by the Iraqi security forces to annihilate and dismantle the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army and allied Special Groups in Baghdad and central and southern Iraq.

The recent release of the Irbil Five, was actually after the release last month of Laith Qazali, the brother of Qais Qazali.

Qais Qazali was the commander of the Qazali network, which is better known as the Asaib al Haq, or the League of the Righteous. Qais was a spokesman and senior aide to Mahdi Army leader Muqtada al Sadr. The terror group, which was part of the Mahdi Army until the spring of 2008, has received extensive financial and military support from Iran's Qods Force.

The League of the Righteous was directly implicated by Surging General Petraeus as being behind the January 2007 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, as well as other high-profile terror attacks in Iraq. Five American soldiers were killed during the Karbala attack and subsequent kidnapping attempt.

As Great Satan closed in to free her sons, terrorists executed the five American soldiers.

Releasing these creeps to Iran -- even for innocent American girls like Roxanne -- is actually a cause for more haeartache.

Iran recipped by trying to detonate Great Satan's new Ambassador Chris Hill to Iraq Sunday -- in Thiqar province -- a

"Shiite Arab-dominated province was among the first handed over to Iraqi security forces, and was the scene of periodic clashes between Iraqi security forces and a militia loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in 2007."

Art -- "Ambush" by Vincent Segrelles

Horten Ho 229

2009-07-11T11:10:00.003-04:00

Reimer and Walther Horten -- often called the Horten Brothers -- had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics, avionics or radar -- yet created the most advanced aircraft design of probably all time.

By 1943 in WWII Deutschland -- it was do or die time. The Eastern Front was absorbing nearly 80% of Das Reich's energies and resources, Afrika was lost -- looked like Italy was next -- and Great Britain and Great Satan were staging the debut of many many 1000 plane raids -- heavy bombers flattening German cities.

Luftwaffe's Reichsmarschall Göring issued a request for design proposals -- the 3 X 1000 project -- to produce a bomber that was capable of carrying a 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) load over 1,000 km (620 mi) at 1,000 km/h (620 mph). Conventional German bombers could reach Allied command centers in Great Britain, but were suffering devastating losses from Allied fighters.

Horten brothers delivered the world's first stealth aircraft. And ejection seat!

Essentially a flying wing, Ho 229 was of mixed construction, with the center pod made from welded steel tubing and wing spars built from wood. The wings were made from two thin, carbon-impregnated plywood panels glued together with a charcoal and sawdust mixture -- magically rendering HO 229 invisible to radar.

A shortage of pilots, petrol and catastrophic defeats on all combat fronts rendered HO 229 null and void

To determine once and for all whether Ho 229 had stealth capabilities, experts first examined the surviving 229 (sweetly hidden in DC) and probed it with a portable radar unit based on WW II time British radar tech.

Then, in the fall and winter of 2008, they set about building the full-scale re-creation at a restricted-access Northrop Grumman testing facility in California's Mojave Desert.

The construction team embraced historic materials and techniques, and the Horten 2-29 replica, like the original, is made largely of wood and bonded with glue and nails.

According to tests on the replica, World War II British radar would have picked up the Ho over the English Channel at about 80 miles (129 kilometers) out, versus 100 miles (160 kilometers) for a conventional World War II fighter.

But because of Ho 229's tremendous speed, the time from detection to target—the British mainland—would have been lowered from the usual 19 minutes to just 8 minutes, making it nigh impossible for Allied fighters to respond.

Pic - Horten Ho 229

Self Inflicted

2009-07-10T09:43:00.002-04:00

"We weren't defeated by superior tactics -- we were thrown against the wall by sheer weight of numbers" so said combat star Kurt "Panzer" Meyer describing last millennium's titanic struggle featuring Nazi time Deutschland versus Collectivist time Russia.

Meyer knew a thing or two about tactics -- having served in Waffen SS Liebstandarte and later commanded Waffen SS Hitlerjugend in Normandy -- and his ancient analysis of Russia's war machine may still be considered au currant.

Despite fond memories of the vaunted juggernaut that ground Eastern Europe into dust eons ago -- Russia's combat bona fides were seriously dissed in not one -- but several wars against Chechnya way back in the 1990's

When Russia tried to put down Grozny the 1st time in the Commonwealth era - it was horribly embarrassing - like catching a longtime Gf hooking up with a guy that she KNEW you liked.

"The initial attack ended with a major rout of the attacking forces and led to
heavy Russian casualties and nearly a complete breakdown of morale. An
estimated 1,000 to 2,000 federal soldiers died in the disastrous New Year's
Eve assault.

"All units of the 131st "Maikop" Motor Rifle Brigade sent into the city,
numbering more than 1,000 men, were destroyed during the 60-hour fight in the
area of the Grozny's central railway station, leaving only about 230 survivors
(1/3 of them captured). Several other Russian armored columns each lost hundreds of men during the first two days and nights of the siege."

The mighty Red Army quagmired in their own back yard with the first defeat suffered by Russia nearly 51 years to the day. Not since the wicked Wehrmacht desperately delivered a bloody nose at Zhitomir Ukrainia had the Red Army been defeated and retreated.

And now BBC shares not so cool intell on the recent panzer blitz that licked Georgia's peach clean last summer.

BBC says Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technology says that half the Russian planes lost in last summer's five-day war were shot down by friendly fire.

The latest issue of the Moscow Defense Brief reports that Russia lost six jets in the war with Georgia, not four as officials claimed at the time. At least three were downed by the Russians themselves.

Detailed info about each of the losses, including times, locations and the names of the pilots.

It is also highly critical of the Russian military.

It says there was a total absence of co-operation between the Russian army and the Russian air force, which led them to conduct completely separate campaigns.

Russian forces easily overwhelmed Georgian troops during the brief war.

But the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes says losses sustained by the Russian side in just five days have led analysts here to question how Russian troops would fare against a bigger, better-equipped and better-trained enemy.

Pic - BBC

Something For Nothing

2009-07-09T00:00:00.000-04:00

Three hours after arriving at the Kremlin, President Barack Obama signed a preliminary agreement on a new nuclear arms-control treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The agreement -- a clear road map for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) -- commits the U.S. and Russia to cut their nuclear weapons to the lowest levels since the early years of the Cold War.

Mr. Obama praised the agreement as a step forward, away from the "suspicion and rivalry of the past," while Mr. Medvedev hailed it as a "reasonable compromise." In fact, given the range of force levels it permits, this agreement has the potential to compromise U.S. security -- depending on what happens next.

In the first place, locking in specific reductions for U.S. forces prior to the conclusion of the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review is putting the cart before the horse. The Obama administration's team at the Pentagon is currently examining U.S. strategic force requirements. Before specific limits are set on U.S. forces, it should complete the review. Strategic requirements should drive force numbers; arms-control numbers should not dictate strategy.

Second, the new agreement not only calls for reductions in the number of nuclear warheads (to between 1,500 and 1,675), but for cuts in the number of strategic force launchers. Under the 1991 START I Treaty, each side was limited to 1,600 launchers. Yesterday's agreement calls for each side to be limited to between 500 and 1,100 launchers each.

According to open Russian sources, it was Russia that pushed for the lower limit of 500 launchers in negotiations. In the weeks leading up to this summit, it also has been openly stated that Moscow would like the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched missiles (SLBMS), and strategic bombers to be reduced "several times" below the current limit of 1,600. Moving toward very low numbers of launchers is a smart position for Russia, but not for the U.S.

Why? Because the number of deployed Russian strategic ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers will drop dramatically simply as a result of their aging. In other words, a large number of Russian launchers will be removed from service with or without a new arms-control agreement.

The Obama administration will undoubtedly come under heavy pressure to move to the low end of the 500-1,100 limit on launchers in order to match Russian reductions. But it need not and should not do so. Based solely on open Russian sources, by 2017-2018 Russia will likely have fewer than half of the approximately 680 operational launchers it has today. With a gross domestic product less than that of California, Russia is confronting the dilemma of how to maintain parity with the U.S. while retiring its many aged strategic forces.

Mr. Medvedev's solution is to negotiate, inviting the U.S. to make real cuts, while Russia eliminates nothing that it wouldn't retire in any event.

This isn't just my conclusion -- it's the conclusion of many Russian officials and commentators. Russian Gen. Nikolay Solovtsov, commander of the Strategic Missile Troops, was recently quoted by Moscow Interfax-AVN Online as saying that "not a single Russian launcher" with "remaining service life" will be withdrawn under a new agreement. Noted Russian journalist Pavel Felgengauer observed in Novaya Gazeta that Russian leaders "have demanded of the Americans unilateral concessions on all points, offering practically nothing in exchange." Precisely.

Beyond the bad negotiating principle of giving up something for nothing, there will be serious downsides if the U.S. actually reduces its strategic launchers as much as Moscow wishes. The bipartisan Congressional Strategic Posture Commission -- headed by former secretaries of defense William J. Perry and James R. Schlesinger -- concluded that the U.S. could make reductions "if this were done while also preserving the resilience and survivability of U.S. forces." Having very low numbers of launchers would make the U.S. more vulnerable to destabilizing first-strike dangers, and would reduce or eliminate the U.S. ability to adapt its nuclear deterrent to an increasingly diverse set of post-Cold War nuclear and biological weapons threats.

Accepting low launcher numbers would also encourage placing more warheads on the remaining ICBMs -- i.e., "MIRVing," or adding multiple independently targeted warheads on a single missile. This is what the Russians openly say they are planning to do. Yet the U.S. has long sought to move away from MIRVed ICBMs as part of START, because heavy MIRVing can make each ICBM a more tempting target. One measure of U.S. success will be in resisting the Russian claim that severely reducing launcher numbers is somehow necessary and "stabilizing." It would be neither.

Third, the new agreement appears to defer the matter of so-called tactical nuclear weapons. Russia has some 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons and many thousands more in reserve; U.S. officials have said that Russia has an astounding 10 to 1 numerical advantage. These weapons are of greatest concern with regard to the potential for nuclear war, and they should be our focus for arms reduction. The Perry-Schlesinger commission report identified Russian tactical nuclear weapons as an "urgent" problem. Yet at this point, they appear to be off the table.

The administration may hope to negotiate reductions in tactical nuclear weapons later. But Russia has rejected this in the past, and nothing seems to have changed. As Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin of the Russian Academy of Sciences said recently in Moscow Interfax-AVN Online, "A treaty on the limitation and reduction of tactical nuclear weapons looks absolutely unrealistic." If the U.S. hopes to address this real problem, it must maintain negotiating leverage in the form of strategic launchers and weapons.

Fourth, Mr. Medvedev was quoted recently in RIA Novosti as saying that strategic reductions are possible only if the U.S. alleviates Russian concerns about "U.S. plans to create a global missile defense." There will surely be domestic and international pressure on the U.S. to limit missile defense to facilitate Russian reductions under the new treaty. But the U.S. need for missile defense has little to do with Russia. And the value of missile defense could not be clearer given recent North Korean belligerence. The Russians are demanding this linkage, at least in part to kill our missile defense site in Europe intended to defend against Iranian missiles. Another measure of U.S. success will be to avoid such linkages.

In short, Russian leaders hope to control or eliminate many elements of U.S. military power in exchange for strategic force reductions they will have to make anyway. U.S. leaders should not agree to pay Russia many times over for essentially an empty box.

Finally, Russian violations of its existing arms-control commitments must be addressed along with any new commitments. According to an August 2005 State Department report, Russia has violated START verification and other arms-control commitments in multiple ways. One significant violation has even been discussed openly in Russian publications -- the testing of the SS-27 ICBM with MIRVs in direct violation of START I.

President Obama should recall Winston Churchill's warning: "Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands."

There is no need for the U.S. to accept Russian demands for missile-defense linkage, or deep reductions in the number of our ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers, to realize much lower numbers of Russian strategic systems.

There is also no basis for expecting Russian goodwill if we do so.

Submitted by Yevgeny Bendersky

Green Light

2009-07-07T00:00:00.001-04:00

Gallons of blood have passed under the bridge since Iran's elections. And, true to form the regime is reaching back to revolutionary bona fides again -- taking Great Britain's Embassy staff members hostage.

Last years rumours that Great Satan may have deflected Little Satan's open diss about smacking Perisa's tender sensitive portions with a lethal dose of enrichment interruptus may be null and void now.

Indeed - Great Satan's amiable, semi avuncular VP mentioned that Little Satan may be able to do whatever she wants whenever she wants.

A green light.

Tough to imagine anyone would really give a flying Imam if Iran were to get bit or hit with a blitz of Little Satan's fighter/bombers or a mix of combat aircraft and missiles.

Rumours that Saudiland may offer up sovereign airspace for IAF to trek along and hit the three critical nodes in Iran's nuclear program are worth noting simply for the operational benefits this offers to Little Satan:

Perhaps to unleash those hundred or so magically enhanced F15's and F16's -- or even go ballistic with -- o -- say, 42 Jericho III missles with about a 750 kg Warhead each would seal the deal.

Pic - Little Satan's Green Light

Red Star Reset

2009-07-06T00:00:00.000-04:00

There is a mystique about Russian-American summits, going way back to Last Millennium's FDR, Sir Winnie and Comrade Josef - the Man of Steel hook up in Yalta in 1945, to the first visit by Great Satan's pres to Mockba in 1972, by Richard Nixon when he signed the unsalty Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I).

Plus historical cats have always thought that the hook up in Wein betwixt JFK and naughty Nikita Krushchev in 1961 was critically crucial 'cause it may have led Khrushchev to think that JFK was a weakling playboy - inciting Khruschev to act out against the Monroe Doctrine leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis that October.

Aside from Commonwealth's on again off again on again deal with Persia to sell and deliver S 300 Air Defense stuff so the Mullahopolis can protect sensitive, tender portions from a devastating dose of enrichment interruptus, the recent military sexercise right up against tiny tiny Georgia -- there have been several indicators that may indicate a 'reset' is indeed reset.

Russia announced last month that it was no longer seeking World Trade Organization (WTO) membership, but was instead going to seek membership for a customs union of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

All that is for sure is that the decision came at just the moment when it seemed as though almost all of the obstacles to Russia's acceptance had been removed.

Cats close to the trade negotiations say that it was imaginable that Russian accession could be completed in a couple of months. Putin took the wheel and turned the policy in a completely different direction. Many Russian economic policymakers are aghast at what has been done.

And lastly the welcome news that Commonwealth herself will facilitate the timely deliveries of goodies, munitions and all kinds of support for Great Satan and NATO combatants currently engaging Taliban, nation building and keeping Liberty's torch flaming in AFPAKland -- directly through Commonwealth turf -- a first.

Discussion topics up for discussion betwixt 44 and Pres Medvedev include:

Medvedev’s earlier proposal for a new security architecture in Europe versus Great Satan's push for NATO enlargement into the former Soviet Union that angers Moscow.

Great Satan's Missile Shield in ex Warsaw Pact turf. True -- there's really no technical reason for Commonwealth to freak at this stage about the missile defense as it's currently proposed. Looking 5, 10 years down the road though -- it could be considered the foot in the door. It could lead to a much more ambitious missile defense program in the future. The concern is that Commonwealth's own deterring missiles would deter little

Aside from photo ops, there are some very interesting developments ahead.

Open Letter to 44 from Foreign Policy Initiatives

2009-07-05T10:09:00.002-04:00

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

You have stated your intention to forge a positive relationship between the United States and Russia. We write on the eve of your summit meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev to express our belief that such a relationship requires a commitment by both countries to democracy and human rights and to urge you to reiterate that these values, which you have called universal, are inextricably linked to humane behavior at home and responsible behavior abroad. Furthermore, we ask you to meet with human rights, civil society, labor and opposition political party leaders while you are in Moscow.

Since Vladimir Putin became President in 2000, Russia has been on a downward spiral away from the democratic and economic reforms made in the 1990’s after the collapse of communism. Human rights activists, opposition political party leaders, lawyers and journalists are targets of brutal, even deadly attacks. Freedoms of speech and the media are increasingly limited by the state and the Kremlin has asserted growing authority over the economy, especially the energy sector.

We urge you to challenge Russian leaders about the lack of political and economic freedom in Russia. In your Cairo speech you stated that the freedom of speech, the ability to choose one's own government and way of life, the rule of law and transparency “are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” Moreover you noted the connection between democracy and security, asserting that “governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure." This principle gained even more salience as Russia's invasion of Georgia last year revealed the lengths to which it will go to assert a sphere of influence in the region.

For decades, the United States was a beacon of hope to those behind the Iron Curtain who longed for their freedom. As you stated in Prague, after the Iron Curtain was lifted “freedom spread like flowing water. Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st.”

As you go forward, we hope that you will maintain a clear-eyed assessment of Russia’s intentions and keep the above principles in mind in order to ensure that the effort to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations does not come at the expense of the Russian people or Russia's neighbors.

Sincerely,

Yevgeny Bendersky
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
William Courtney
Larry Cox
Lorne Craner
Larry Diamond
Donald Douglas
Nicholas N. Eberstadt
Jamie M. Fly
Jeffrey Gedmin
Carl Gershman
Morton H. Halperin
Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
Max M. Kampelman
Robert Kagan
David Kramer
Irina Krasovskaya
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
Clifford D. May
Thomas O. Melia
Courtney Messerschmidt
A. Wess Mitchell
Joshua Muravchik
Danielle Pletka
Stephen Rickard
David Satter
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Dan Senor
Stephen Sestanovich
Gare A. Smith
John Sullivan
William H. Taft IV
Peter Wehner
Kenneth R. Weinstein
Christian Whiton
Leon Wieseltier
Damon Wilson
Jennifer Windsor
Kenneth D. Wollack
R. James Woolsey

Independence Day

2009-07-04T00:00:00.001-04:00

"The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, September 12, 1821

Operation Strike Of The Sword

2009-07-03T00:00:00.002-04:00

Involving nearly 4K Teuffel Hunden in a classic 'Hammer and Anvil" op, Great Satan's Marines celebrate her Happy BDay with the smack of cordite and sweat of battle.

"Operation: Strike of the Sword"

Pushing into the Taliban infested poppy dope fields of Helmand river valley, 44's AfPak Surge is supported by British troops stationed in Helmand, and the Pakistani military, which has set up along the border to block Taliban fighters from escaping into Pakistan.

Leathernecked commanders described the mission as different from previous offensives in terms of the "massive size of the force introduced, the speed at which it will insert, and the fact that where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces.”

Reported casualties on both sides are minor so far, but a senior Taliban commander told Reuters that "Thousands of Taliban mujahideen are ready to fight against U.S. troops in the operation in Helmand province."

Marines countered Terrorist happy talk “It is not simply about killing the enemy, but about protecting the population and improving their lives, which will help prohibit the return of insurgent elements.”

Killing will def be on the menu for time traveling, intolerant control freaks who fear girls and free choice.

Marine Corps siezed valuable turf pretty fast -- in Nawa and Garmsir in central Helmand Province, and in Khan Neshin in southern Helmand.

And they don't plan on splitting the hood anytime soon. Holding off on artillery and air strikes -- the Marines plan to hold and build -- repeating Iraq Surge strategy by suckering in creepy creeps into a giant sucking killing machine to grind them up and leave on the side of the road for a stranger to bury.

On Great Satan's Highest Holiest Day Weekend -- keep the Marines in prayers -- the pride of our nation -- fighting to shed the light of freedom and liberty.

Pic - "Marines LOVE Taliban -- they taste just like chicken"

By His Own Rules

2009-07-02T00:00:00.001-04:00

Considered among the best and brightest of his generation, Donald Rumsfeld was exceptionally prepared by successful careers in politics and biz to assume the Pentagon’s top job in 2001.

Yet six years later, he left office as the most controversial Defense Secretary since Robert McNamara, widely criticized for his management of the Iraq war and for his difficult relationships with Congress, administration colleagues, and military officers.

Was he really the arrogant, errant, over-controlling Pentagon leader frequently portrayed—or as his supporters contend, a brilliant, hard-charging visionary caught in a whirl of polarized Washington politics, dysfunctional federal bureaucracy, and bad luck?

Bradley Graham (long time WaPo reporter guy), closely covered Rumsfeld’s challenging tenure at the Pentagon, offers an insightful biography of a complex personality.

Revealing a portrait of the ultimate Vulcan whose impact on Great Satan's Nat'l Security and Foreign Policy will long outlive him, "By His Own Rules" is journalism at it's best.

Those who dislike Rumsfeld will find plenty to stoke their anger; those who admire him -- much that is praiseworthy. Those few with an open mind will learn a great deal about the man, his gifts and his flaws.

The anonymous "former senior defense official" makes a few appearances in the book's eight hundred pages, but as a rule he cites his sources by name, and everything contained in quotation marks is a direct quote. He presents the story, but ultimately gives the reader the opportunity to make his own judgments.

Especially delish are the bits that shed on the Vulcan who wiped clean and rew again the operational methodologies of Great Satan's military and shed some light on a number of Rumsfeld's unheralded successes.

Like the effort to realign the armed forces' basing structure across the globe away from a structure optimized for the Cold War past in order to position Great Satan better to respond to current and future threats.

And Rumsfeld, confronted with a war planning process that was cumbersome and unresponsive to strategic direction, championed the Adaptive Planning Initiative, which has led to plans that are developed more rapidly, feature more options, and benefit from greater guidance from senior leaders.

A few stereotypes get flat busted up in "By His Own Rules". Like that Rumsfeld was pure neocon. Actually, the avuncular Vulcan really didn't have any interest in building wonderful Disneyland like societies around the world.

He thought democracy was desirable and a long term guarantee of peace and stability for any nation liberated but his main interest was to make Great Satan's enemies scream "GOD! PLEASE! STOP!"

Didn't matter if they were non state actors like Al Qaeda or long time nation states like Iraq or Iran. He wanted to position Great Satan to strike fast, hard and annihilate her enemies in the least amount of time, visiting righteous payback on their heads, inflicting the most casualities while suffering the least casualities and liberating the most turf.

And he didn't really give a dang what all anybody (save the Commander in Chief) thought about it.

History will render its own verdict on Donald Rumsfeld's second tenure at Pentagon, but "By His Own Rules" contains tons of evidence for both the prosecution and the defense and will most likely remain the essential piece (along with James Mann's "Rise of the Vulcans") to go to for future historians.

The 2nd Korean War

2009-07-01T00:00:00.001-04:00

News that the naughtily nautical Kang Nam has plotted a new course -- back to despotic NoKo -- raises a few quizes.

A suspect 'tramp' freighter, tailed on the high seas by a team of American destroyers and submarines and watched by reconnaissance satellites and aircraft.

On board,her cargo could be plutonium pellets, missile parts or semi-ripe melons.

In any event, Great Satan would really like to know exactly what booty she be toting.

Perhaps the end user of the mysterious cargo decided the PR would be counter productive and requested a hold on delivery -- or perhaps there is a deadlier reason.

Great Satan and NoKo have never really cut a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War. This means Great Satan, a combatant in the conflict, as leader of the U.N. Command, is free to use force against Pyongyang.

On legal grounds, Great Satan's Navy has every right to seize the Kang Nam, treat the crew as POWs and confiscate her cargo, even if the ship is carrying nothing more dangerous than "Girls Gone Wild" dVd box sets dubbed in perfect Arabic (with authentic Yemeni dialects).

Because the Navy has the right to torpedo the vessel, which proudly flies the flag of another combatant in the war, it of course has the right to board her.

"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," President Barack Obama, reacting to North Korea's test of a long-range missile, said in the first week of April. Unfortunately, the President's words have apparently meant little because Kim Jong Il's belligerent state has, since that time, detonated a nuclear device, handed out harsh sentences to two American reporters, and announced the resumption of plutonium production.

"North Korea has threatened nuclear war several times in recent days and this month sent one of its patrol boats into South Korean waters. American envoys, in response, have issued stern warnings, participated in meetings in the region, and engaged in high-level diplomacy in the corridors of the U.N. None of this, however, has led to the enforcement of rules or the punishment of the North Korean regime.

"North Korea's words, in contrast, have meant something. They have, as noted, ended the armistice. Of course, no one is arguing that the nations participating in the U.N. Command resume a full-scale land war in Asia. Yet recognizing the end of the temporary truce would allow the U.S. to use more effective measures to stop North Korean proliferation of missile and nuclear technologies.

"Yet, as much as the international community would like to avoid a confrontation, the world cannot let Kim Jong Il continue to proliferate weapons. Moreover, it is unlikely that he will carry through on his blustery threats. The North Koreans did not in fact start a war when, at America's request, Spain's special forces intercepted an unflagged North Korean freighter carrying Scud missiles bound for Yemen in December 2002.

44's Admin definitely has a legal justification to seize the Kang Nam. NoKo, after all, has resumed the Korean War.

Art - "2nd Korean War"

Honduran Hanky Panky?

2009-06-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

The expulsion of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by the Honduras military has sparked a lively debate over whether or not the takeover should be called a "coup". The reason for the debate is simple enough -- "coup" conjures images of a military junta seizing power by extralegal force and repressing all opposition akin to Argentina in the early 1980s.

Defenders of the Honduran military action point out that this action was not extralegal and was, in fact, authorized by the legislature and the courts in response to Zelaya's own illegal attempt to extend his power in an imitation of his international mentor, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Critics, however, believe that this is just a rhetorical shill to cover up some kind of bias against Zelaya's leftist politics.

What both sides miss is that a "coup" isn't always extralegal. In short, what is happening in Honduras may be an example of a coup that is not only legal, but mandatory. The oddness of this concept to American minds requires an explanation.

Civil-military relations in the United States are founded on assumptions both inside and outside the military that derive from the work of the late Samuel Huntington in The Soldier and the State. Under Huntington's ideal of "objective civilian control," the military is granted substantial autonomy over a professional sphere of managing the application of violence, but is given no political role.

Various forms of "subjective civilian control" where the military becomes embroiled in civilian political struggles are argued by Huntington to be militarily deficient and presumed by most westerners to be morally deficient as well. Americans frequently assume that this ideal is universally shared as an intrinsic component of a democracy.

But this American presumption is more a pretension than an objective description of how societies organize themselves politically. While it is true that American and European consultants make a priority of encouraging developing democracies to adopt Huntingtonian ideals (NATO's "Partnership for Peace" is a notable example, as is the reformed curriculum of the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly-known and still-protested as the "School of Americas"), some countries explicitly endow their military with a role in maintaining democratic governance.

For example, in Turkey, the military is constitutionally empowered to act as a check on the potential for Islamic parties to undermine the secular foundations. In 1962 and 1980, the Turkish military undertook coups that were not only seen as legal, but mandatory and necessary. This military influence has continued to function in less aggressive forms during more recent political crises involving the banning of Islamic parties and the selection of the head-of-state.

Like the Turkish military, Latin American armies have a long tradition of political involvement. While in some cases, most notably Argentina, this tradition has been intentionally deconstructed (the disaster of the "dirty war" and defeat in the Falklands War provided a strong impetus for change), officers have continued to hold a widely-accepted political role in other countries. It is worth remembering, for example, that in spite of his pretensions of outrage over this coup in Honduras, Venezualan dictator Hugo Chavez was himself the leader of a coup attempt in 1992.

As more news continues to filter out of Honduras, it appears as if the Honduran military was specifically authorized by a court order to arrest a President that was judged to be out of control.

The fact that the American military would never be so authorized should not distract us from the possibility that legal authorizations for military interventions into politics might exist in other countries' constitutional arrangements.

The takeover in Honduras might be, in fact, a legal coup.

The author is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His dissertation forces on variations in the political and policy-making roles of the U.S. military.

Realism = Regime Change

2009-06-29T00:00:00.001-04:00

Recent events in Iran -- exposing the illegitimacy of Mullahopolis (and by design all unfree regimes) rather realistically proves any attempts to negotiate, find common ground and indulge in friendly give and take would never work to convince theocrats in Tehran to join the fun, free, functional free world.

Au contraire! Persia's regime would use any happy happy joy joy dialogue to maintain power at home and project it abroad.

Clearly, it's clear -- for all who care to see it -- what the Ayatollah/Revo Guard regime will offer if it survives: A severe suck fest of harsh repression at home and unrelenting hostility toward the West.

If the regime chooses to "engage" at all with Great Satan, it will be to bolster its shaky legitimacy, not to surrender its nuclear program or its support for terrorists like HAMAS and the most proficient killers and serial tormentors of Americans in history -- Hiz'B'Allah.

The only real deal for annihilating such threats is that demanded by the demonstrators: regime change.

Great Satan's avuncular PNAC signatory, the ever cool Great Satan Fan Ambassador Dr John Bolton gives "3 Major Reasons:"

"First, the regime's economic mismanagement has brought the economy of a country rich in oil and natural gas to near-gridlock. Periodic but piecemeal strikes have been put down, but the prospect of a simultaneous, sustained, nationwide strike remains a potent threat

"Second, Iran's young people -- two-thirds of the population is under 30 -- know they could have a much freer life if they could only overturn the mullahs' strict rule. The young are educated and sophisticated, and they know there are alternatives to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's velayat-e faqih, the system of "guardianship of Islamic jurists" that imposes harsh Sharia law on Iran today.

"Third, Iran is only about 50% Persian. Arabs, Baluchis, Azeris, Kurds and others resent the ethnic, political and religious discrimination they face constantly and have little or no love for the Islamic revolution. "

That is not just the moral course; it's the most realistic.

Art "Realism=Regime Change" by Seok Chan Yoo

Leaving Town

2009-06-27T10:44:00.005-04:00

"Rejectionists fear Iraq is going in the right direction" declares Great Satan's Madame Sec the one, the only HRC.

Oh Snap! Tell us something we don't know.

While much attention is focused on unarmed rowdy rejectionists rejecting a militarized, computerized police state ran by time traveling, intolerant control freaks just to the east of Iraq - fact is the site of the blitzing defeat of the largest Arab army in history in 20 days has a red letter day fast approaching on 30 June.

HRC's commentary seems kinda deja vu -- ish. After all, defeatists, retreatists and Great Satan haters often mocked the avuncular (and nigh indestructible cardiac wise) Vulcans like VP Cheney -- who pointed out rejectionists in Iraq were signalling desperation or when brother Vulcan Def Sec Rumsfeld termed them "Dead Enders"

So when "Al Ameriki" tribe splits the hoods, bazaars and warrens of Iraqi cities, villages and towns to hang out in off site, climate controlled bases -- an Anti Surge of violence is expected -- As Dr Stephen Biddle (Oh! He got game!!) @ CFR recently pointed out tons of maybes baby about how Iraq could return to the edge of the Abyss pre Surge and maybe even hop on off the precipice.

Thankfully - he offers a reminder that, as suck as Iraq has been, there are many ways that it could become much worse if Great Satan gets in too big a rush, over reacts to "rejectionists" - or worse -- doesn't react at all.

"The most effective option for prevention is to go slow in drawing down the U.S. military presence in Iraq. On balance, paying the cost of a slower withdrawal, while expensive, may ultimately be the cheaper approach."

June 30th is the deadline for Grat Satan's combat troops to leave urban areas. The deadline was contained in the Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) that 43's admin negotiated and that the incoming 44's admin embraced back in March.

Violent Anti -- Surges in Iraq do seem date driven - every previous major Iraqi milestone such as an election, referendum, or anniversary -- and the new Iraqi army guys are way better now than they were back in the day. Still, violent violaters gained the initiative -- albeit for a very short time -- and their game plan could be tried again.

Bad, Bad Basra comes to mind and they are probably hot for fun and free choice enough to seek out, pre empt and annihilate foreign creeps, local creeps and terroristic bombers who seem to have regressed to the old school AQ in Iraq plan to target shi ite people, sites and stuff to kick start a sectarian civil war.

Even though anti surge was expected -- the current spasm of the rejectionists --is a rude dude metaphorically speaking -- mainly because the starting point for measuring murder in Iraq is way lower than it was in the past on other anniversaries -- and thus dramatic.

Also helps to note Coalition and Iraqi forces conducted mini-surges of their own to preempt the violence, but now the catalyzing event is arepositioning of combat power, thus making those preemptive tactics more difficult.

Yet not impossible.

Pic "Great Satan can come back to town anytime She wants"

"An Offer He Can't Refuse"

2009-06-26T00:00:00.000-04:00

Another round of sanctions and inspections won't work. It's time to talk to the North Koreans in the only language they understand.

As a North Korean cargo ship suspected of carrying weapons approaches Burma, trailed by the U.S. Navy Destroyer John McCain, the U.N. Security Council's June 12 resolution against North Korea's weapons trade faces its first test.

The resolution bans most arms transfers to and from North Korea, calls on states to conduct inspections of North Korean ships in their ports or on the high seas when there are "reasonable grounds" that banned cargo is on a ship, and allows states to seize and dispose of illicit weapons. These steps have been touted by U.S. diplomats as "innovative," "robust," and "unprecedented." But the resolution is in fact nothing more than a feeble attempt to force North Korea to comply with pre-existing nonproliferation agreements, reminiscent of the council's failed decade-long efforts to force Saddam Hussein to comply with Iraq's disarmament obligations. In Iraq, it was military force, not economic sanctions, that finally worked. It is naive to think that the situation in North Korea, a country that has lived under sanctions for the past 60 years and allowed large segments of its population to starve, will be any different.

What has gone largely unnoted about the resolution is that its provisions on boarding and inspecting ships and aircraft simply allow what states already have a right to do under international law. It is already well-established that a state has complete jurisdiction over foreign vessels that enter its ports, including the right to inspect cargo and the right to deny entry altogether.

Similarly, a provision that "calls upon Member States to inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag State on the high seas" adds nothing to the recognized legal regime applicable to boarding vessels at sea. In fact, the resolution may have the unintended consequence of hindering the boarding of vessels, because it requires that permission be obtained from the "flag State" - i.e. North Korea - rather than the ship captain.

More worrying is the lack of an adequate enforcement mechanism if North Korea fails to grant consent for the boarding. The resolution, which was adopted under Article 41 of the U.N. Charter and is therefore limited to "measures not involving the use of armed force," does not provide any solution.

North Korea, moreover, has likely learned a few lessons from its past mistakes. In December 2002, for example, a Spanish frigate stopped and boarded the North Korean merchant vessel So San approximately 600 miles off the Horn of Africa at the request of the United States. After the So San ignored the Navarra's hails and several warning shots, Spanish Special Forces seized the vessel, which had been tracked by U.S. intelligence agencies and was suspected of carrying weapons. Aboard the ship were 15 complete Scud missiles, 15 high-explosive warheads and 23 nitric acid rocket fuel containers bound for Yemen.

Along with the lack of response to hails, there was another factor that helped permit the Spanish to seize the ship: The So San wasn't flying a North Korean flag, which under international law counts as reasonable grounds to suspect that the vessel is stateless, and therefore that it can be lawfully boarded. In the future, however, we can expect North Korean merchant ships to prominently display their flags and respond to hails, making it more difficult to search them legally.

Even if we put the problem of enforcement aside, however, what diplomatic goals can the inspections resolution possibly accomplish? Pyongyang has no intention of returning to the negotiating table. On June 13, North Korea's Foreign Ministry condemned the passage of the resolution and stated that North Korea would not only "turn the remaining volume of newly enriched plutonium into weapons" but would also "launch efforts to enrich uranium." This is the first acknowledgement by the regime that it has been developing a uranium enrichment program. U.S. officials estimate that North Korea already possesses six to 12 nuclear devices and has accelerated its ballistic missile and nuclear testing.

Additionally, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicated in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that "North Korea may be able to overcome technical difficulties and assemble a missile capable of hitting" the West Coast of the United States within three to five years. And, although analysts believe that North Korean scientists have not yet mastered the technology to place a nuclear weapon on a long-range ballistic missile, it is only a matter of time before they will.

If the international community is serious about maintaining the integrity of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - which is of course already in doubt since Israel, Pakistan, and India have been allowed to possess nuclear weapons -- the United Nations must act now to adopt a more relevant resolution affording North Korea one last opportunity to comply with its obligations. The resolution should establish a strict deadline for compliance and authorize the establishment of a complete blockade of North Korea if the deadline passes and North Korea is still thumbing its nose at the world. Getting tough on Kim Jong Il's regime will also send a strong message to Iran that it will face similar action if it fails to abandon its uranium enrichment activities.

We can take measures to force these regimes into compliance now, or we can wait until they are already nuclear capable -- when the stakes will be significantly higher.

Submitted by Raul Pedrozo, professor of international law at the Naval War College and the former staff judge advocate for the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet.

Pic - Great Satan's Guided Missile Destroyers

Frenemies

2009-06-25T01:51:00.003-04:00

Ancient history. Not long after Lebanon's fav son Rafik Hariri's death in a bombing was traced back to Syria's bloody hands (right to the bro in law of the Dr General President for Life Bashar al Assad -- Great Satan withdrew her ambassador to Basharopolis.

Since 44's new era of happy happy joy joy began and blurring the line between buds and arch enemies into 'frenemies' is all the rage -- Great Satan may be hooking up with Syria ala a new ambassador.

1st thought -- natch -- is why should dozens of political assassinations in the service of a geopolitical power grab be allowed to get in the way of hope and change?

"This is in line with the president's desire to engage Syria diplomatically to resolve a number of issues of concern to the United States." The State Department official said the process was in its "very early stages" and the administration had not yet selected who it may nominate to fill the post...

Washington withdrew its ambassador from Syria in 2005 to protest the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Syria denies any involvement in the killing. A U.N. investigation into the assassination initially implicated several Syrian and Lebanese officials, but later reports have been more circumspect. A special U.N. tribunal set up to try suspects in Hariri's killing began work in The Hague in March.

Actually TIME reported last March that 44 might shield Syrian officials from the Hariri tribunal. Because bringing them to justice for the murder would presumably get in the way of "resolving a number of issues of concern."

Impressions that Syria's continued interference in Lebanon was one of Great Satan's central issues of concern, but apparently it's not as important as it once was.

And just for the record, because every time 44 makes one of these gambits the pretexts churned out by academics and diplomats are the same:

Congressional envoys have been reaching out to Assad for months with no tangible tangibles. The talks haven't peeled him away from Iran. They haven't moved him from his absurd conditions on a Little Satan peace deal. And they haven't even gotten him to lighten up a little on human rights.

So those "issues of concern" are presumably off the table.

Or are they? In light of the horrific violence Syria's patron Persians have visited upon the heads of their own dear people -- human rights -- has gotten a boost in the Free World's internat'l pysche.

Perhaps a rapproachment with Syria may have a chance of further isolating and pressuring Iran.

Dont laugh -- savvy cats in the ME are scratching their heads over Bashar's recent
"Hello!" about Iran's murderous electile dysfunction -- proclaiming Iran's regime is stronger than ever after the fake believe election and a homie shout out to Saudiland's King Abdullah.

"Another Arab source who is familiar with the details of what is happening in many Arab countries that have links to Iran as well as Lebanon, said that "paying tribute to Iran in this manner is strange as nobody is saying that the regime has collapsed" even if Tehran is suffering from serious problems that will have consequences on the regime.

"The source added that the Syrian praise of Iran is "by way of not speaking ill of the dead" as he believes that the Syrians have made a choice to move away from Tehran, opening the door to the Americans, which is something that can be verified by the recent diplomatic action taken by Syria. "

Hopeful maybe yet totally doubtful.

But hey, now that the IAEA has found even more proof of a Syrian nuclear program - maybe we can talk about that.

44's Diplomacy's been working so well with NoKo and Iran.

Bystander In Chief

2009-06-24T00:00:00.001-04:00

"We don't know how this thing is going to play out."

Somehow, that statement doesn't blow your mind like "hope and change," but that's exactly how Obama feels about Iran.

"We don't know how this thing is going to play out."

Which, as you know, is a stance that has never stopped our President from immediately re-imagining health care, trying to end enhanced interrogations, or reducing carbon dioxide emissions via something ridiculous called cap and trade legislation.

"We don't know how this thing is going to play out."

I imagine you can use that excuse on pretty much anything. Except when it comes to press conferences. Which is why Obama does them. And now that our President has recognized that he's potentially on the wrong side of history – he gave us a press conference designed to blunt criticism, as opposed to blunting the persecution of innocent people.

"Bearing witness," as Obama calls it, is all it takes, apparently. But I'm not so sure. If you were being mugged, you'd really like a cop to shoot the bastard, instead of bearing witness. If you're lugging five bags of groceries up four flights of stairs, "bearing witness" does no good. Lend a hand, champ.

So I disagree with Obama – we're not seeing a "debate" in Iran. We're seeing a brutal, ruthless crackdown. Something tells me that stopping that is more important than reducing carbon emissions to fight a questionable threat.

Look, I like the fact that he's finally - although reluctantly - stepping up, but I wish Obama felt as immediately outraged about Iran as he did over the murder of an abortion doctor.

"We don't know how this thing is going to play out."

It would have been closer to Obama's real concerns, if that quote ended with "for me."

submitted by Greg Gutfeld

Check List

2009-06-23T09:25:00.003-04:00

While the subject of the most awesome of all regime changes -- from the inside out -- is in mind, consider what does it take to make a successful revolution?

That quiz is clearly weighing heavily on Supreme Leaders mind. In his long rant at last Friday’s prayers at Tehran university, Iran’s supreme leader accused foreign governments of trying to foment a revolt in his country. He claims that foreigners are using the uprisings in the former Soviet Union as a model. “They are comparing the Islamic Republic with Georgia,” he complained.

Supreme Leader is absolutely correct.

The comparison between events in Iran and the “colour revolutions” in the former USSR is certainly suggestive. Andrew Miller, a journalist at The Economist who witnessed the colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan has come up with a useful “checklist” of some of the factors that can help a revolution to succeed .

● “Critical mass”: small demonstrations of 5,000 people can be ignored or suppressed. But half a million people in the streets is another matter.

● Weak or divided security services.

● Some independent media.

● Money.

● Serious corruption, which Mr Miller argues is “generally the main mass motivator”.

● Opposition leaders who have served a stint in government.

● A history of rebellion from which lessons can be learnt.

● Strong support in the capital city.

● A rigged election that provides a spark for the revolt.

Gideon Rachman at Financial Times adds a few more items to consider:

● A divided ruling elite.

● A sense of revolutionary momentum from events overseas; Europe in 1989 and 1848 show that revolution can be catching.

● External help.

● The use of violence by the authorities, which can either make or break a revolution.

"Every element on these two lists is now present to some degree in Iran – with the possible exceptions of division within the security forces and significant external assistance.

"The demonstrations in Tehran have been huge. Even after Mr Khamenei’s warnings of impending bloodshed, very big crowds turned out on Saturday – some were killed and almost 500 were arrested. The task for the opposition now is to find a way of motivating people to keep demonstrating, despite the dangers. Many Iranians will recall that it took more than a year of sustained unrest to topple the Shah in 1979.

"For the moment, the Iranian security services seem grimly united and willing to shed blood. The Basij militias and Revolutionary Guard show little sign of wavering. The real signs of division are within Iran’s ruling elite. Mr Khamenei did his utmost to paper over these at Friday prayers. He praised both President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s bitter enemy, former president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani. But since then Mr Rafsanjani’s daughter has briefly been arrested. A power struggle is clearly under way.

"As for money and the media: the media is controlled, but independent reports on the internet and foreign journalists are helping to fill some of the gap. The Tehran middle class is not on the breadline. And the street demonstrations that are keeping the opposition going do not, anyway, require huge resources.

"Corruption is clearly an acutely sensitive issue. Mr Khamenei addressed it directly on Friday. “Everybody must fight corruption,” he urged. “If it is not brought under control it will spread, like it has in some western countries.”

"The Ukrainian and Georgian revolutions were led by former ministers who had turned against the government. If this does matter, then as a former prime minister Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the leader of the Iranian opposition, certainly ticks the box. Some cast doubt on his credibility as an opponent of the regime, given that he was one of only four candidates regarded as sufficiently ideologically-sound to run in the first place. But Mr Moussavi has now come to symbolise far more than his own rather cautious views.

"As for a history of revolt: these are by far the biggest demonstrations since the foundation of the Islamic Republic in 1979. But there has been repression before, of student and reformist movements. When it comes to “support in the capital city” and allegations of a rigged election – both elements have clearly been critical to sustaining the revolt.

"It suits the Iranian government to blame the revolt on foreigners. (Flatteringly, Mr Khamenei insisted on Friday that “the most evil of them all is the British government”.) But whether the regime likes it or not, the demonstrators on the streets of Tehran are angry Iranians, who need little encouragement from outsiders. However, events in the outside world might have influenced the politics of Iran in more subtle ways – the election of Barack Obama and political change in Iraq and Lebanon may have helped to fan a wind of change in Iran as well.

"The great unknown is the effect of violent suppression of the demonstrations. Once a regime starts killing its own people it crosses a line. Sometimes, as in Iran in 1979, bloodshed on the streets leads to such a loss of confidence and popularity that it spells the end for a government. On other occasions, if a government is brutal and ruthless enough, violent repression can work – China in 1989 is the obvious recent example.

"Killing demonstrators, however, has stripped the Iranian government of its claims to legitimacy.

"It may secure the regime’s survival in the short term.

"In the long term, it surely dooms it.

Art - Checklist

Girls Of The Green Revolution

2009-06-22T00:00:00.002-04:00

While Supreme Leader is busy considering if he may actually be like the last Supreme Leader and serially cranking up the violence against his own people, Great Satan is begining to actually consider out loud all the hot!, cool and desirable desire that would unfold -- if say -- the regime in Mullahopolis were to collapse under it's own illogic and illicit weight.

A regime of control freaks who watched as their control spiraled out of control.
Let's say it shall we? -- "Regime Change!!"

"Everything is on the line in Iran, at present -- not only the future of the Iranian regime, but also of the Middle East, and by extension, the most tangible western interests.

"Consider: if the Iranian regime were to fall, by far the largest organized threat to peace in the region would be removed. This includes not only a fairly proximate nuclear threat to Israel (for all we know North Korea's second nuclear test was actually Iran's first), but sponsorship of the most efficient part of the world's Islamist terror apparatus.

"Hezbollah and Hamas are both, today, for all practical purposes, Iranian proxies. Through them, and through other channels, the regime of the ayatollahs makes money, materiel, and expertise available to terror cells as far away as Argentina, Sweden, the Philippines.

"But more significantly, Hezbollah and Hamas together represent an Iranian veto on any Palestinian settlement, or any attempt to ameliorate that conflict, with all that that implies.

"The Syrian regime, most dangerous of Israel's neighbours, would, in the absence of Iranian support, have to make accommodations, indeed find new allies.

"North Korea's chief conduit into the illicit Middle Eastern arms trade would be lost.

"The principal external threat to Iraq would be removed, along with sponsorship of Iraq's own domestic insurgencies. Afghanistan would also be more secure.

"In economic terms, the threat of a world crisis provoked by the interdiction of oil shipments from the Persian Gulf would disappear.

"Both Russia and China would lose a very important lever of influence on world affairs.

"If the ayatollahs come down, the whole world situation is changed, and in every conceivable way for the better. It is impossible to overestimate the stakes of the insurrection in Iran.

Fear of a 'Velvet Revolution' is nothing new to the mullahs or the Revo Guard --

During his Friday prayers address at Tehran University, the Supreme Leader mentioned the dangers of a "velvet" revolution and it is clear that the regime has been deeply concerned by the democratic overthrow of Eastern European and west Asian governments since the fall of the Soviet Union. People power – through which the 1979 revolution was ultimately successful – is a devastating weapon (albeit the only one) in the armoury of a serious but unarmed political opposition.

"In the aftermath of the Ahmadinejad "success" at the polls, his supporters were handing out leaflets condemning the secular revolutions of Eastern Europe, and their content says much about the anxieties of Iran's clerical leadership.

One of them was entitled: "The system of trying to topple an Islamic Republic in a 'velvet revolution'." It then described how it believes Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine and other nations won their freedom.

"'Velvet' or 'colourful' revolutions... are methods of exchanging power for social unrest. Colourful and 'velvet' revolutions occurred in post-communist societies of central and Eastern Europe and central Asia. Colourful revolutions have always been initiated during an election and its methods are as follows:

"1. Complete despair in the attitude of people when they are certain to lose an election...

"2. Choosing one particular colour which is selected solely for the Western media to identify (for their readers or viewers)." Mousavi used green as his campaign colour and his supporters still wear this colour on wristbands, scarves and bandannas.

"3) Announcing that there has been advance cheating before an election and repeating it non-stop afterwards... allowing exaggeration by the Western media, especially in the US.

"4) Writing letters to officials in the government, claiming vote-rigging in the election. It's interesting to note that in all such 'colourful' projects – for example, in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan – the Western-backed movements have warned of fraud before elections by writing to the incumbent governments. In Islamic Iran, these letters had already been written to the Supreme Leader."

Indeed -- even Great Satan has an operational plan to use to help tip the regime over the edge and let it crash called "Operation Checkmate"

Yet perhaps the ultimate weaponry against Preacher Command is Iran's own dear sweet girls.

The senseless thug style killing of "Neda" has sparked a ton of sympathy and people are openly wondering about the worthiness of even trying to dialogue with control freaks that torment their own people for stuff like demonstrations

"Babe Theory" (And that's a ho nother piece - no pun there) in mind, the hotties of Iranistan have a bit part that they are playing, players.

To the iconography of revolution -- the man in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square, young people ripping shards off the Berlin Wall -- we can now add this: the red nail polish, black eyeliner and side-swept bangs of young Iranian women.

So conservative by American standards, yet revolutionary by Iranian ones: these women, who by law can do and say and expose and adorn almost nothing, are agitating for the most basic human rights in the smallest of ways. And it is these tiny acts of rebellion that the Iranian government, which has further constricted the rights of women since the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, cannot abide.

"I do not know a single woman who is pro these laws," says a 29-year-old Iranian woman, who has lived in the US for the past 11 years. "They are not as bad as the Taliban, but it's all relative."

The women of Iran are on the verge. They are more literate and highly educated than men (63% attend university), and, as in the US, women comprise 50% of the vote. Ahmedinejad's challengers -- even Karroubi, the cleric! -- made a point of soliciting the female vote, appearing in public with their wives, or speaking to the need for more women in parliament or positions of power. Mousavi, the so-called reform candidate, shrewdly deployed his wife, political science professor Zahra Rahnavard, as a vocal campaigner. Her electrifying effect on the electorate led to comparisons to Michelle Obama.

"I really like her," says the Iranian ex-pat. "She could be very influential and help change the suppression of women. She's educated and very open-minded. A lot of people follow her."

The resonance Rahnavrad has had on the electorate rattled Ahmedinejad enough to drag his own wife -- a woman many Iranians are unsure even exists -- out of the shadows. Sort of. She doesn't speak, and dresses so conservatively that all one can see are her eyes. "And she wears glasses!" says Iranian scholar Dr. Nayereh Tohidi. "That makes it even harder!"

Under Ahmedinejad, Iranian women must cover their heads and their bodies at all times. They cannot file for divorce, travel without their husband's permission, attend sporting events, smoke a hookah. Beauty salons are outlawed, and the ones that exist are run like speakeasies. (Men have never been able, or really willing, to outlaw vanity.) Once she turns 13, a girl can be conscripted into marriage. Even public transportation is segregated

10 out of 11 Iranian girls have had nose jobs. Boys and girls drink alcohol (which is forbidden) and date and log onto Facebook and hang out at the mall. They know how kids in the West live and they like it and want to live like that too. The hottest commodity in Tehran is an iPhone. Boys are not shy about asking girls out. Young people on the whole are not religious, because they see a theocratic government twisting and manipulating religious dogma to its own ends.

"The more fundamentalist families -- that's where you see problems," says the ex-pat. "Because this new generation, my age and younger, they know that a lot of the laws that control them are unfair. They have the Internet. They can see the basic human rights that most everyone else has. I was in Tehran eight months ago. These girls are not afraid. They do what they want. And sometimes they are beaten."

In the wake of this most recent election, Ahmedinejad was asked about the status of women in Iran. He said that they have more rights than men. "Can you believe that?" says Tohidi. "It made women outraged."

Yet no matter the outcome of this revolt, says Tohidi, Ahmedinejad does not know what he's up against.

"He cannot take women back again," she says. "Even if he stays in power, it won't last."

The police in Tehran have formed a special task force specializing in dress codes. Known as "the green police," they often park their vans outside malls and by the promenades where kids hang out, snatching up girls whose dress is deemed too provocative. Usually it's a female officer -- swathed head-to-toe in black -- who does the rounding up and arresting, the photographing and fingerprinting, the calling of the parents.

Last year, Sara says that her cousin, who lives in Tehran, was arrested: "Her clothing was not short or tight, but the cops cut it up," she says. Women who can afford to bribe the police are let go; those who can't are beaten with metal chains. Curiously, it is the women who truly defy the dress code, who wear bright colors or a tighter silhouette (one can only imagine what that could constitute), who are left alone.

"The cops won't bother with those girls," says Sara. "I asked my family why, and they said, 'Those girls are already a lost cause. They're already ho's.' "

Pic "If an innocent girl gets killed 1/2 way around the world -- does her death make a sound?"

Papa!

2009-06-21T15:43:00.001-04:00

44, Where Are You?

2009-06-19T12:54:00.003-04:00

Since Iran went off the hook and 44's rather underwhelming "wait and see" approach (which seemed awful anti hope and change btw) Supreme Leader and his minions double teamed the response in the streets and in DC.

Hot on the heels of chanting their fav encantation -- that Great Satan was once again 'meddling' in the internal affairs of sovereign Persia -- followed closely by Supreme Leader's 90 minute yawn a thon that threatened a serious crack down on the Green Wave.

This is significant -- 1st off the regime has yet to unleash the full power of all their control mechanisms like the Revolutionary Guard and the full wrath of the Beseejis.

2nd -- Supreme Leader actually conferred legitimacy on the people. Consider -- the regime has a serious contender in this regard. Iran's own people are raising cain about clerical rule in a computerized Police State - a closed society that fears face book, fun and free choice.

Governing the state with out the consent of the people -- despite 30 years of it -- does not confer confidence or legitimacy on the ayatollahs or their minions.

So now, the ball is back in 44's court.

Great Satan's premier Regime Changer (with Philippines, SoKo, Re unified Germany, Collectivist Russia and of course Iraq under his belt) lays out a very cool game plan

"The reform the Iranian demonstrators seek is something that we should be supporting. In such a situation, the United States does not have a "no comment" option. Coming from America, silence is itself a comment -- a comment in support of those holding power and against those protesting the status quo.

"It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale toward dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom. And if we appear so desperate for negotiations that we will abandon those who support our principles, we weaken our own negotiating hand.

"That does not mean that we need to pick sides in an Iranian election or claim to know its result. Obama could send a powerful message simply by placing his enormous personal prestige behind the peaceful conduct of the demonstrators and their demand for reform -- exactly the kind of peaceful, democratic change that he praised in his speech in Cairo.

"Like the rest of the world, President Obama must have been surprised by the magnitude of the protests in Iran. Iranians are protesting not just election fraud but also the growing abuses of the Iranian people by a dictatorial regime. Now is not the time for the president to dig in to a neutral posture. It is time to change course."

Specifically -- taking a tough as nails stance -- against Iran's regime -- is an almost once in a life time opportunity to wipe clean and draw again then entire ME -- in Great Satan's interests:

"Like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

"This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

"The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

"In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

"Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless.

"The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

"All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs' disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

"That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

"And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world."

And this is the moment we've been waiting for.

Art - "Regime Change"

Missiles and Ships

2009-06-18T19:42:00.002-04:00

NoKo has a track record of conducting provocative events on Great Satan's High Holy Days such as the last nuclear test occurring over the Memorial Day weekend. So it is likely that this next missile test will be on the 4th of July weekend, which is something they did before 2006.

According to the latest reports the Taepodong-2 missile is going to be likely launched from their new Tongchang-ri missile base on the country’s West Coast.

Pentagon has repeatedly said that they can shoot down this missile, and ya gotta admit - Def Sec Gates may not telegraph specific intentions - but he does telegraph high confidence that it can be done.

The real quiz is - is the political will available to do it?

News about tracking suspect NoKo transport ship toting suspect booty seems to indicate if any missiles come any where close to Hawaii a fireworks show may in fact happen over the 4th of July holiday.