Imagine for a moment,

Imagine for a moment that you are a member of the Iraqi security forces. Perhaps you have joined because it was the only job available, perhaps because you formerly served under Saddam's regime, perhaps because you suffered at the old regime's hands and wish to prevent those abuses from happening again. To a certain degree, the reasons largely become irrelevant.

Imagine that your family has been terrorized, you have been threatened, and your friends and comrades have been killed. On the news, you hear repeatedly that the United States does not truly support a free Iraq. You hear that the insurgency is growing, that security forces grow more fearful rather than more assertive. It sinks in. You begin to question your role - and the future of your country.

Now imagine that you are assigned to provide security during the elections. Imagine that you are awakened to the silent majority's resolve as they file endlessly by to the polls, dismissing fears of attack. Imagine watching men and women of all ages, all beliefs, all ethnicities expressing their free will in the face of fear. Imagine that the initial flush of joy you felt when the old regime collapsed has returned...only now it is stiffened with a pride in your country and your countrymen.

Imagine how this will affect your actions when you next encounter those who choose violence over the rule of the law. Imagine, for a moment, physical courage bound with a burgeoning sense of duty, commitment, and pride.

Imagine that, Kos. Imagine that, "Professor" Cole. Imagine that, Mr. Moore. Just for a moment.

Update:

Exhibit A:

Despite 260 insurgent attacks - the highest level yet seen in one day - the "degree of lethality" was remarkably low, reflecting high readiness and morale among the Iraqi police and military units guarding the sites, the US diplomat said.

"In almost every case, Iraqi forces stopped the attacks."

Exhibit B:

Shuwayli threw his arms around the bomber and drove him backward about 50 feet into an intersection. The rush seemed to catch the suicide attacker by surprise. The bomber had a hand grenade but failed to throw it. A second or two passed before he detonated an explosive belt, police Lt. Col. Kadham Abbas said.

Update 2:

Steven Vincent from the Red Zone discusses winners, losers, and work yet to be done. As he says,

In the past, the homegrown Iraqi militants got a lot of mileage from their claims that they fought a "foreign occupation." Whatever little merit that argument possessed has vanished with the election: now the ex-Baathist Saddamites appear in their true light--fascists attempting to overturn a democratic government. At what temperature does the legitimacy of reactionaries burn? Fahrenheit 9-11.

Update 3:

Eric Martin at Total Information Awareness offers a realistic assessment of the (numerous) issues still to be addressed now that the elections are behind us. He also includes a number of great links to other takes on the election and their meaning (or lack thereof, for the more cynically minded).

Iraq
Elections

How to build a conspiracy theory in 13 easy steps.

A thought occurred to me last night - spurred in equal parts by this post on Total Information Awareness (an excellent analysis of the damage Zarqawi and bin Laden do to their own message through their statements regarding Iraq), Juan Cole's foolish trumpeting of accusations leveled against Iraq The Model, and the subsequent Sarah Boxer piece intimating the same:

How long until the lunatic fringe decides to accuse Zarqawi of being on the CIA payroll? Seriously...what better villain could the U.S. possibly have conjured up to unite Iraqis behind both the idea of elections and some degree of secularization in government?

For those who see complex conspiracies behind every U.S. action - AND every response to U.S. action, this one has got to be irresistible. MY favorite Z-conspiracy theory would go something like this (click here for his real bio):

1. 1966: [He] was born a poor black child. [He] remembers the days sitting on the porch with [his] family singing and dancing, down in Mississippi.
2. 1983: He joins the Army and is selected for "specialist training" due to his refreshing lack of morals.
3. 1989: He is indoctrinated into a nefarious CIA scheme involving brainwashing and assassins.
4. 1992:He is "arrested in Jordan." U.S. military intelligence (and, of course, an evil mega-corporation) mistakenly brainwash him AGAIN, convincing him and his cell mates that he was a heroic fighter in Afghanistan.
5. 2003: Zarqawi is sent to Iraq by his dastardly CIA (or DOD? Who can tell these days?) handlers to establish ties between terrorism and Saddam Hussein's regime.
6. 2003-2004: As the "brave Iraqi minutemen" rise up to defend their nation against American aggression, Zarqawi is ordered to begin attacking Iraqi civilians. He is secretly responsible for every civilian death not committed by the murderous American forces.
7. April, 2004: After greedy U.S. mercenaries are killed while stealing Iraqi children's lunch money in Fallujah, Zarqawi is ordered to move to Fallujah and begin declaring a jihad against the United States, allowing the U.S. to blame foreign fighters for the continued violence while launching air strikes on nursery schools labeled as "terrorist safehouses."
8. November, 2004: As the U.S. military launches an all-out assault on Fallujah, Zarqawi is secretly ordered to Mosul with strict orders to make Sunnis look so unreasonable, the world will turn a blind eye to Kurdish forces' cleansing of the city.
9. December, 2004: A sloppy U.S. propaganda unit responsible for programming Zarqawi accidentally fills him with over-the-top denunciations of democracy, puppy dogs, and little girls. Former General Gary Luck, lead programmer for South Korea's leaders during his time there, is sent to evaluate what went wrong.
10. December, 2004 (Continued): Luck approves the U.S. plan and orders Zarqawi's programmers to take it up another notch in an attempt to garner support for a secular, Shiite government built around the CIA's OTHER 'brainwashed stooge' in Iraq, Prime Minister Allawi.
11. January, 2005: Zarqawi continues acting like an idiot, playing into America's evil hands. On election day, he is ordered to commit "just enough" atrocities to discredit the "heroic" resistance without disrupting the vote.
12. Summer, 2005: George Bush visits Iraq, allegedly to meet with its new leaders. Zarqawi is ordered to charge the podium shouting "Death to Democracy, puppies, and all things good!" Bush pushes the Iraqi leadership to safety, rolls up his sleeves, and inflicts a Texas-style whoopin' on Zarqawi (as choreographed by his WWE advisor). As he prepares to inflict the killing blow, he hesitates, turns to the cameras, and says, "I won't sink to your level" before dropping him and walking away. As he walks away, Zarqawi rises, pulls a hidden gun from his pants. As he prepares to fire at the President, five carefully selected "Iraqi commoners" jump him and wrestle the gun away. Zarqawi is killed in the struggle.
13. Summer, 2030: On his deathbed, World Emperor Bush mutters his final words to a royal consort who has asked who shall succeed him. The advisor turns, faces those around him and announces, "He says…to the STRONGEST!" Condi, Wolfowitz, and Jenna eye each other warily, knives drawn and hidden behind their backs....

Think I sound ridiculous? About half of the links above lead to conspiracy theorists stating their belief in what I describe. The truth is out there - and if these idiots were any further away from said truth, they'd be sitting on the moon right now. That is, if we ever MADE it to the moon....


Iraq
Elections
Satire

Do as I say, not as I do.

I picked this one up from Scotsman.com News:

“The irony is the Arab regimes, who criticise the gaps in the (Iraqi) elections and demand they be honest and transparent leading to full democracy for all Iraqis, are themselves banning such elections for their own peoples,” said Lebanon’s Al-Anwar political analyst Rafik Khoury.

Update:

This story from the CS Monitor highlights the growing 'power of the press' within the Arab world - and how it isn't ALWAYS aimed squarely at comdemning the United States. It should be interesting to see how this sort of brow-beating (dare I call it muckraking?) is applied to Arab governments if the democratic process in Iraq advances:

The Arab media's success in forcing Arab leaders to change their response to the tsunami is quietly revolutionary. Arab leaders haven't generally been accustomed to paying attention to public opinion, nor to the media, which they generally can control, repress, or shut down. Satellite TV stations such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya can not be so easily controlled - nor ignored. That humanitarian relief for the victims of the tsunami - rather than more predictable issues such as Israel or Iraq - has become a focus of the Arab media's outrage, and that Arab leaders responded, offers a genuine new road for Arab politics.

Irony

Spinning the elections in Iraq.

The 'historic' day has arrived. People are proceeding to the polls, and the press is (as usual) spinning the story to fit its own preconceived notions. Let's take a look at reports citing the good and the bad.

From Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an unsurprisingly upbeat report:

With polls about to close across Iraq, voter turnout is reportedly high and, so far, insurgents appear to have failed to carry out threats of spectacular attacks.

The UN's top election adviser in Iraq, Carlos Valenzuela, says that voter turnout -- at least in "some parts" of the country -- is exceeding expectations. He did not give any firm figures, but he said his estimate is based on reports from the polling booths.

Adel al-Lami, a spokesman for Iraq's Independent Election Commission, told reporters that the turnout shortly before polls were due to close was 72 percent of registered voters.

But let's give them credit for putting a cloud inside their silver lining:

Polling stations in Sunni-populated central and north central Iraq -- where insurgents have most active over the past months -- are reported to be largely empty.

Still, if security is uppermost in many minds today, it is unclear whether that alone is keeping voters at home in the most restive areas of central and north central Iraq. There, some Sunni community leaders have repeatedly called for a boycott of the polls both out of security concerns and out of fears the vote will turn power over to the Shi'a majority.

From a decidedly less optimistic Reuters UK:

Insurgents have unleashed a wave of bloody attacks on Iraq's historic election, killing at least 22 people and wounding dozens in suicide bombings and mortar strikes at polling stations across the country.

Militants determined to wreck Iraq's first multi-party elections in half a century struck mainly in Baghdad, carrying out nine suicide attacks in rapid succession.

And just to remind people of all that could go wrong (without, of course, highlighting any of what could go right):

Many Shi'ite and Kurdish voters braved the insurgents' threats of an election day bloodbath. But in Iraq's Sunni Arab heartland, where violence has been fiercest, few people ventured out and some polling centres remained shuttered.

A low Sunni turnout could undermine the credibility of Iraq's first election since Saddam Hussein was toppled in a U.S.-led invasion in April 2003.

Many fear that instead of quelling the anti-American insurgency, the poll could foment sectarian strife, delaying any withdrawal of U.S.-led forces from the country.

In fairness to Reuters, this report was released an hour earlier.

From Al-Jazeera, a story apparently filed early in the day - and running contrary to some of the more optimistic reports emerging from Mosul, Samarra, and Fallujah:

A number of Mosul's Kurdish residents have defied death threats and an unstable security situation and headed towards the polls, but in some other Iraqi cities no one is voting.

As polls opened across the country, early signs showed a poor turnout of voters in Mosul. US soldiers were seen driving around city blocks asking why residents were not voting.

In war-ravaged Falluja, nearly all residents stayed at home despite the presence of five polling stations. Only one man was reported to have voted.

Meanwhile, the head of the local council in Samarra said no citizens would vote because of the poor security situation.

"Nobody will vote in Samarra because of the security situation," said Taha Husain, the head of Samarra's local governing council.

When you think about it, things must be going pretty durn'd well for Al-Jazeera to be stuck with so little to harp on....

For those not interested in nuance, we have the 100% bad news from Robert Fisk:

In Baghdad on Saturday they were supposed to be preparing for an election. But they were preparing for war.

The American Bradley armoured vehicles on the streets, the United States foot patrols, the old Russian personnel carriers that Saddam Hussein bought on the cheap from the Soviet Union - now dressed up in the dull camouflage paint of the new Iraqi army - the hooded and masked policemen: they do not look like the prelude to an experiment in democracy. They are all waiting for the rivers of blood of which insurgents have warned. But there will be democracy in Iraq.

The mortars rained down yesterday morning on the Green Zone where the US and British embassies are located, a "thumpety-thump-thump" that brought the American Apache choppers over the surrounding highways in less than 30 seconds - but the insurgents had disappeared.

Then a fierce gun battle broke out in the very centre of Baghdad between Americans and insurgents. Too late again. The gunmen got away. Fantasy attacks before a fantasy election. Many Iraqis do not know the names of the candidates, let alone their policies.

...and the near-100% good news from Wired:

Millions of Iraqis turned out to vote Sunday, defying anti-U.S. insurgents determined to drown the historic poll in blood.

Suicide bombs and mortar fire shadowed the event, the first multi-party election in 50 years, killing at least 22 people. But still voters came out in force, many with resolve, some with fanfare and others with their faces hidden.

Even in Falluja, the devastated Sunni city west of Baghdad that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a slow stream of people turned out, confounding expectations.

"We want to be like other Iraqis, we don't want to always be in opposition," said Ahmed Jassim, smiling after voting.

In Baquba, a rebellious city northeast of Baghdad, crowds clapped and cheered at one voting station. In Mosul, scene of some of the worst insurgent attacks in recent months, U.S. and local officials said turnout was surprisingly high.

I'm sorry Mr. Fisk is unhappy with an election that will likely represent the will of over half of Iraq's voting population. And I'm sorry he chose to stress nothing but the negative aspects of an event that is clearly, for many Iraqis, a momentous occasion. Perhaps he would have enjoyed the much more peaceful, and much less contentious proceedings in Iraq's LAST elections. Here's what one elderly Iraqi from Najaf had to say about that:

"I had often been forced to vote under Saddam Hussein. Today I come out of my own will to choose freely the candidate of my choice for the first and last time in my life," said 80-year-old Mahdeya Saleh in the holy city of Najaf.

So how many votes do you think Saddam racked up this time around?

I think I express the opinions (and hopes) of the majority of those paying attention to Iraq's elections when I express excitement at the prospect of free and fair elections, deep respect for the courage of Iraqis choosing to vote under dangerous conditions, and optimism that such elections will eventually lead to a stable, unified Iraq acting on the will of its people.

I'm not a religious man...but I think a word of prayer for those risking their lives today in Iraq would be in order.

From the Counterterrorism Blog.

Mike Ubaldi at uBlog provides some poignant pictures and his usual refreshing (if ocasionally unjustified...at least in my eyes...) optimism.

Hindrocket at Power Line offers this upbeat story - among others. Power Line also takes the time to frown upon Mr. Fisk.

Chrenkoff's coverage is, of course, as thorough (and upbeat) as one is likely to find.

So far my Blog references have focused on the positive (mainly because I consider this a "positive until proven otherwise" event). I'll take a look for the flip side tomorrow....

Iraq
Elections

Guns, Germs, and Collapse

Gregg Easterbrook reviews Jared Diamond's latest effort in the NY Times Sunday book review today.

I read Guns, Germs, and Steel two or three year ago and, for some reason, took a much different message from its context than many others. To me, the book is indeed a study in cultural relativism, but from a different perspective. Mr. Diamond (perhaps unwittingly) debunks the notion of the uniqueness of Western aggression and colonialism by clearly stating the lessons of history: 'imperialism' and 'colonialism' are the natural results of technological imbalance between societies. In other words, Western (European) expansion occurred because the advantages of guns, germs, and steel allowed them to spread. If cultures elsewhere had been able to harness the same tools, the results likely would have been similar...but with Europeans now railing against Middle Eastern or Latin American colonialism - and Latin American or Middle Eastern scholars decrying their flawed society's uncontrolled aggression while praising the simple, peaceful ways of the European.

As the review suggests, Mr. Diamond often fails to deal with the fact that culture can, in fact, influence history. And neither Mr. Easterbrook nor Mr. Diamond address the likely effects of technological advances (made for whatever reason one wants to posit) on the culture they occur within. In other words, the natural advantages described by Mr. Diamond allowed European culture to advance. As the culture advanced, it evolved and developed, allowing it to better use the tools available.

But putting all that aside, let's focus on the review: Jared Diamond has a new book out - Collapse. It appears to be well-researched and thought-provoking. Gregg Easterbrook believes it also makes some flawed assumptions (as he believes Mr. Diamond's original book did). Both books, however, encourage critical thinking and intelligent debate. What more can we really ask from an author?

Update:

For those too looking to skip reading the comments (or frustrated by the 1000 character limit), I am consolidating one reader's (outstanding) explanation of how Western culture has capitalized on the favorable hand it was dealt by location:

I wouldn't say that Diamond's first book was about cultural relativism. Instead, it focused on the fact that societies exist within particular environmental realities - biomes - and adapt to those realities. You can't grow wheat in the arctic and that leaves a society with minimal economic options, a limited capacity to support a population, and therefore, it functions within a basic technology. The West (Europe) exists in one of the richest biomes of the planet - and it is this ecological reality that moved it into an increasing population base and a concomitant requirement for an expanding knowledge base and technological inventiveness to support this population.

That's not relativism, for the culture is grounded within hard data - the reality of the biome.

Tim, I wonder if the problem is your use of the term 'relativism'. To me, this refers to a situation where one says that A, B and C societies cannot be compared; that their modes of operation are self-defined and cannot be evaluated. So- if A society moves into democracy and a complex technology and B society functions within tribalism and a simple technology - relativism would reject any analysis of WHY these different modes existed. Relativism merely focuses on a current description of WHAT each society is doing. It ignores causality and therefore, ignores that a particular mode might become dysfunctional if the population size increases.

In the case of the West, it is a fact that it emerged as 'the West' only because of the richness of its ecological base - soil, water, climate. That enabled population increases, which required it to move to more complex political modes - i.e., democracy, and required it to develop innovative technologies.

Innovation requires independent thinking and entrepreneurial actions. WIthout this - the West would have been unable to support its ever-increasing population..and would have had to 'fall back' on the earlier, pre-technological change tactics of famine, plagues, wars. But- dispensing with these as a method of population control, and moving its population into a social mode of independent thinking and actions(democracy and capitalism) - the west was able to support that increasing population with new technologies and agricultural, medical, industrial tactics.

Without that rich biome, their population would not have increased beyond the capacity of the stable, nogrowth peasant agriculture..and 'forced' them into a social mode of life that motivated individual freedom. As a result, the West did indeed become wealthy, entrepreneurial, free-thinking, inventive - and this dominated the world.

The rest of the world doesn't have that rich biome and was able to stay in 'no-growth' position and operate within a collectivist, stable, non-individualist state that denigrates independent thinking. You can see this difference right now in the Middle East - which is fighting to remain tribal and collectivist even though its population base has risen beyond the capacities of such a mode of organization. The ME must become democratic -

So- I agree - the 'rise of the West' has absolutely nothing to do with Western Culture or an innate aggression or other such nonsense. What should be realized is that the West, as a 'culture', is a product of deeper infrastructural domains - namely - its population, which rests on its rich biome..and which requires an economy and political mode (capitalism and democracy) that can support that growth population.

There is nothing 'relativist' about this. Instead, the analysis is grounded and can comment on
why other societies did NOT become dominant - which again, has nothing to do with the 'culture' of these other societies. It has to do with the fact that their biomes did not encourage explosive population growth and therefore, did not require the social organization to drastically change to permit innovative technologies.

Literature

I WISH this were a joke.

I just read this story on MSNBC:

Bernie Hogan, the head of Australia’s overseas voting program, said the riot erupted when a group of around 20 protesters started yelling insults at voters leaving the polling center in a Sydney neighborhood dominated by Iraqi Shiites.

Hogan said the protesters were holding up the same black flag with white lettering that has appeared as a backdrop in videos released by Iraqiinsurgents featuring foreign hostages begging for their lives. Thair Wali, an Iraqi adviser for the International Organization for Migration, said the protesters’ flag and Arabic slogans identified them as Wahabis, followers of an austere brand of Sunni Islam practiced mostly in Saudi Arabia.

Let me just say this: Iraqi Sunnis better hope like hell the Kurds and Shiites are satisfied with the results of this election...and that the U.S. stays in country (at least for now). How long would it take for the Shiites and Kurds to cleanse the Sunni Triangle if they decided to take the gloves off? And who would be willing to intervene in such a bloodbath?

The real Revolution in Military Affairs?

The American military has poured money, time, and resources into the idea of a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) centered around "information dominance." In practical terms, this has meant equipping vehicles and soldiers with GPS, with "blue force trackers," and with the radio capability to run a "tactical intranet." In other words, to allow the information gathered at the lowest levels to be displayed all the way up to the highest levels. This tactical and operational RMA is designed to create better information for leaders making decisions on the battlefield. Has it done so? I don't know, honestly.

But that's not the real story here. Like the 'civilian' blogosphere with its ability to nimbly gather, process, and distribute information far more quickly than the establishment media services - albeit in a haphazard manner - a similar system has begun to develop almost accidentally within the military. As highlighted in this article from the New Yorker (hat tip to Phillip Carter at Intel Dump), information sharing outside the planned "tactical intranet" - and away from the battlefield - is expanding rapidly. The combination of easy Internet access in even the most austere forward operating bases and a growing savviness among junior leaders in sorting and manipulating this information make such tools as important to refining and adjusting TTPs as official doctrine.

Just as the informed consumer has changed the news cycle, these informed soldiers no longer feel the need to wait for official lessons learned and doctrinal changes from on high. And even as the Army tries to manage a similar program from the top down, the pace of information spreading between individual "nodes" on this decentralized network makes many of the official information channels either hopelessly outdated or serving as mere launching points for forward-leaning officers to build from - in much the same manner that bloggers feed off of MSM reporting. Dan Baum from the New Yorker elaborates:

The younger officers have another advantage over their superiors: they grew up with the Internet, and have created for themselves, in their spare time, a means of sharing with one another, online, information that the Army does not control. The “slackers” in the junior-officer corps are turning out to be just what the Army needs in the chaos of Iraq. Instead of looking up to the Army for instructions, they are teaching themselves how to fight the war. The Army, to its credit, stays out of their way.

The military has done its share of fielding "off the shelf" technology. Could this informal information sharing system serve as such an off the shelf project? Mr. Baum found proof of this as well:

Little by little, the Army is absorbing Companycommand.com and Platoonleader.org. In 2002, West Point put Platoonleader on its server, and a year later added Companycommand; both sites now have military addresses. The Army also began paying the Web site’s expenses. It sent all four of its founders to graduate school to earn Ph.D.s, so that they can become professors at West Point, where they will run the sites as part of their jobs. And the Army is starting to pay the Web sites the sincerest form of flattery: in April, the commanding general of the First Cavalry Division, Major General Peter Chiarelli, ordered up a conversation site for his officers. Cavnet, as it’s known, exists only on siprnet, and is vetted, as an official Army site.

Considering the pace of change within the insurgency - whether through changes in tactics, changes in the technology of IEDs, or otherwise, the military has no option but to increase its own ability to foster rapid change. As in the Information Revolution that has reinvented news media and corporate organization charts, the revolution is now reinventing much of how our military operates...and while "ruthless competition" in the civilian world means "adapt or go bankrupt," it often means "adapt or die" to those on the front lines. How much will this additional urgency increase the pace of change? Will the military continue to embrace it? What happens if it begins to break down the traditional lines of authority within the military? How nimbly will colonels and generals, unfamiliar with such fast-paced change and living outside the pressure cooker of direct combat, react? The blogosphere is a culture of criticism where few are considered above the fray. How will higher military leaders react to having ideas they disseminate pushed back with criticism and comments from subordinates? This is largely uncharted territory for a professional military.

Links to Platoonleader and Companycommand. Membership is required to access either site.


Update:

Winds of Change offers a similar analysis of the American military's adaptiveness.

Military
Technology

Frenchmen agree to serve in Iraq...

It looks like at least SOME Frenchmen dispute their government's stance on Iraq. While France itself remains committed to avoiding involvement there, eleven brave young jihadis were willing to give their lives in the name of promoting oppression and martyrdom:

PARIS - French militants who join the fight against U.S.-led forces in Iraq (news - web sites) could one day return to strike terror in France and elsewhere, the defense minister warned Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

The warning followed the detention this week of 11 people in Paris as France's domestic counterterrorism agency moved to break up a network suspected of seeking to funnel young French Muslims to Iraq. Ten suspects remain in custody; one woman was released Wednesday.

There is an extensive article over at Winds of Change regarding the Muslim "underground jihad" network European intelligence agencies believe has developed on the Continent:

This is probably the first place that I've actually seen a half-way decent definition as to the basis behind the much-named Takfir wal Hijra:

Radical Islamist shaykhs find ideological legitimacy for establishing support structures and operation bases outside the historical core areas of the Islamist movements (the MENA region) in the Prophet’s traditions (al-Sunna). They instigate this modus operandi with reference to the concepts takfir and hijra. Takfir is Arabic for deeming someone as an infidel or kafir (i.e. excommunicating someone). Hijra is Arabic for emigration.42 As ideological concepts they refer to Muhammad’s historical emigration from Mecca to Medina where the first Muslim community was established. The Meccans persecuted Muhammad and his followers because they posed a political threat. Faced with persecution they excommunicated the Meccans and emigrated to Madina. In Medina Muhammad built an army capable of recapturing Mecca in 630 A.D.

Europe, if I understand this correctly then, would be seen as analogous to Medina in radical Islamist circles then? They plan to conquer Europe and once that is done, then they set about overthrowing the heretic governments of Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, etc. If this interpretation is accurate, then it would seem that the Takfir wal Hijra movement poses a far greater and more immediate threat to Western Europe as a whole than has previously been articulated outside of some American and European conservative circles. I suspect that the European intelligence agencies are all aware of this, but perhaps the political establishment and the general public do so as well? It would certainly place the current situation in the Netherlands in quite a different context, as it would mean that the Dutch political figures who were targeted by al-Qaeda and its allies were to be assassinated as a prelude to the establishment of an Islamist state - in Europe!

The article is a long read...but it's compelling at times. The amount of terror activity within Europe will, I think, surprise many who choose to read the whole article. For those who don't, let me sum it up with this:

The list of conspiracies gives an idea of the scale of Islamist terrorism activity in Europe from 1998 to 2003, and provides an empirical basis and context for the case studies. A certain chronology is maintained in each category based on when the information about the terrorist events reached the press. When reading the list, one should bear in mind that European intelligence services have estimated that approximately 30 “spectaculars”, or mass casualty attacks against targets in Europe have been planned by al-Qaida affiliated groups since September 11, 2001.256 The list gives a short description of the events. According to the definitions outlined above, at the time of writing, we have registered 14 conspiracies, 3 terrorist attacks, 2 examples on terrorist threats, 4 examples on “terrorist export from within Europe” and 16 poorly documented terrorist events. If we look at the “terrorist conspiracies” all over Europe, and the “terrorist attacks” in Belgium, Germany and Spain, which are the best-documented events, we see that U.S. or NATO targets were selected in 7 out of 18 cases. If we look at “terrorist conspiracies”, “terrorist attacks”, “terrorist threats” and “poorly documented terrorist events”, U.S. and NATO targets have also been selected frequently - in 12 cases.

Europe
Terrorism

Gadgets and such.

Interesting 'new' technology that is beginning to enter the mobile phone arena:

The most unusual feature of the TS41 is the way that you can hold the TS41 to your face to hear a conversation. Similar to electric bone conduction hearing aids, it works by using bone to conduct sound waves. In other words, when you hold the TS41 against your cheekbone, the phone's vibrations are transmitted through your skull to the bones in your inner ear. They vibrate in turn, just as if they were under the influence of a sound wave and send signals into the brain accordingly. Sanyo claims bone conduction technology makes sounds easier to hear, especially in a noisy environment. Some may be pleased to know that the flip phone can also be used in the traditional way, if preferred.

The military has been fiddling with this for a number of years. I tested (for about six months) a system that put the "microphone" on the top of my skull (inside my helmet). It was great until my helmet shifted and lost firm contact with my noggin. It was fantastic in helicopters because I didn't have to yell and/or cover the mike with my hand to block the noise and wind when I was talking. Then again, because I had to push down on the top of my helmet to make the durn'd think work reliably, this brought a whole new meaning to the term "Push to talk." I had to push on my helmet with one hand and push the REAL push to talk button with the other - not the best use of two hands in stressful times.

I've seen other systems that placed "cheekpads" along the jawbone. These served the same function described above for the mobile phone and were fielded on a test basis by some special ops units back in the late '90s. I'm not sure what's available now. As I recall, neither of these two systems managed to incorporate both talking and listening into bone conduction - one required a standard ear piece and the other required a standard mike.

An obligatory hat tip to Paul for the article...

Technology

Who says the title has to match the story?

The Associated Press offers us further proof that headlines and content are not meant to be viewed side by side:

The Headline: Top U.S. Commander: Iraq Forces Not Ready

Lead Paragraph:

The top American commander in Iraq (news - web sites) on Wednesday said U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces were still not ready to take over the counterinsurgency and there was no guarantee they will ever be able to defeat it on their own.

Let's take a look at what Gen. Casey actually said in the interview:

"Can I sit here and look you in the eye and say that the Iraqi security forces guaranteed 100 percent are going to be able to defeat this insurgency by themselves? Of course not," Casey said.

"From what I've seen in the seven months that I've been here, I believe that we can achieve capable Iraqi security forces over a period of time that can deal with the Iraqi insurgency that's here."

I guess that's what he gets for offering a realistic assessment. Did the reporter mention anything about the expected timeline for having more Iraqi troops trained? Did he mention that, since reorganizing the training effort some months ago, the military has repeatedly said this is a process that will take at least a year or two? My impression would be that he is implying that the general is admitting a recent failure to meet a pre-determined timeline to have those troops ready. In essence, that is the opposite of what he is saying. This is poor journalism.

Here's my thought:

Me: "...well sure, eventually the world will end. And I imagine all Iraqis will die sometime."

Reporter's interpretation: "According to world-renowned expert-on-everything Tim, the world is ending. All Iraqis are doomed."

The Mudville Gazette offers further examples of AP's poor work here.

The Daily Polemic dissects additional bias here.

The Ranting Professor digs into another article here.


Iraq
Journalism

Iranians spit on EU. Europeans find hopeful signs in spittle.

This from AP News:

A confidential summary of talks between key European powers and Iran made available to The Associated Press on Tuesday shows there has been no progress in getting Iran to scrap nuclear enrichment — even though Tehran acknowledged it does not need nuclear energy.

Sounds like bad news...right? Wrong. Sounds like PROGRESS!

Diplomats familiar with the talks said on condition of anonymity that the atmosphere between the two sides had improved during the second round held in Geneva on Jan. 17.

Improved? Because the Iranians don't feel the need to hide their intentions anymore? I dunno if I'd call that an improvement.

A separate confidential memorandum summarizing talks focusing on political and security themes said the atmosphere was "more conducive and productive" than the initial round held Dec. 21.

Conducive and productive in what manner...?

"Well...yeah, they spit in our face by admitting they have no economic need for nuclear power...but we were thirsty anyway." Or is that too harsh an assessment?

Europeans: "You don't REALLY need nuclear energy for economic reasons do you...?"

Iranians: "Nope."

Europeans: "Oh, smashing! So you're going to stop then, right?"

Iranians: "Nope."

Europeans: "I see. Well could you tell us WHY you need nuclear capability?"

Iranians: "Nope."

Europeans: "I see. Can we talk again next week?"

Iranians: "Yep."

Europeans: "Ah-HAH! Agreement! I'm so glad we had this chance to talk...."

Update:

On a more serious note, the Counterterrorism Blog discusses recent Iranian saber rattling aimed at the U.S. and Israel:

Iran chimed in today with some saber-rattling. Brigadier-General Mohammad-Ali Jafari, commander of the Revolutionary Guards' ground forces, was quoted today as saying, "We will counter any stupid action by Israel and its master [the United States] with firmness and in an astonishing way." Referring to the 1980-88 war with Iraq, Jafari stated, "We pushed the Baathist enemy from our country within one and a half years. With the experience and skills from that war and in the case of any invasion, the invaders will be defeated in less than one and a half months."

Iran
Nukes

Call it the "me, too" syndrome, if you like.

Instapundit has once again served as the inspiration for elaboration. There are two related articles I'll be highlighting here, both of which are linked to the Instapundit post above. Both are in the WaPost and written by Brett Mcgurk.

Here, Brett offers an Op-Ed discussing the importance of th elections and the process through which a new government will be formed:

Iraq's upcoming elections will be an event with real potential to turn the tide both in Iraq and in the war on terrorism. As Afghanistan demonstrates, credible elections -- elections that are perceived as free and fair -- can sap the influence of violent extremists whose only claim to power is brute force and intimidation.

That is why the claims of Sunni groups that advocate a boycott of elections must be vigorously rejected. These groups, such as the often-cited Association of Muslim Scholars, fail to disavow violence, yet they claim that the electoral process is somehow rigged against them.

Rarely are their claims scrutinized. Indeed, it is remarkable that in all the commentary and reporting on the Iraqi elections, little has been said about what exactly those elections are for -- and how powers will be shared after the elections even if violence keeps some away from the polls. But there lies the answer to Sunnis who threaten a boycott.

Aside from the Op-Ed piece there is an excellent question and answer transcript in the Post as well. I'll highlight one question from the transcript:

Wheaton, Md.: Whether or not the Sunnis boycott, won't they still, most likely, lose and declare the election invalid?

Brett McGurk: Again, it is not accurate to speak of the Sunnis in a monolithic voice -- "they," etc. I saw a statement recently by Lucius D. Clay, the military governor in the US Zone of occupied Germany from 1947-49. He said on a return trip to the United States (and I'm paraphrasing): "I'm constantly asked about the German Mind -- how does it feel about the occupation and the future of Germany? My answer is that the German Mind is like any other mind -- complicated, with a range of opinions on every imaginable issue."

The same can be said for Iraq. Will some Sunnis reject the results? Probably. But others will not. Note that more than 200 political parties have registered for the January elections -- representing Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Communists, Islamists, Monarchists, Secularists, and so on. And most lists are themselves quite diverse. The United Iraqi Alliance is commonly referred to as the "unified Shiite list," but it contains a number of prominent Sunnis as far as I understand. You can get a sense of this diversity at an Iraqi blog called Healing Iraq [note: I added the link]. The blogger had a long post last week on the parties, their candidates and platforms. The Council of Foreign Relations also posts good information on the progress of elections and political development.

Two interesting points from the transcript: #1 (not included in the bit provided here) - Brett discusses why he chose to hold this session with the WaPo (the long arm of the web-based media to reach a large audience) and #2 he highlights an Iraqi blogger as another excellent source of information on the elections. He is displaying the power of both MSM and the blogger to influence this debate. WaPo reaches a large audience and offers the best forum for his message. The blogger, onsite in Iraq and privy to more information regarding the election and its parties, represents the power of the individual to contribute.

Wretchard of Belmont Club fame throws his hat into the ring with these two entries discussing the elections, democracy throughout the region, and the idea of a united Shiite power bloc. Both are excellent reads and include a few more interesting links.

On a completely separate note, I've discussed the fundamental disconnect I often saw between CPA and military operations in Iraq here. What I haven't talked about is the tremendous amount of respect I hold for those members of the State Department and folks such as Brett who stepped forward to accept the challenge of rebuilding Iraq with the CPA.

I spent only three months incountry (a very short time compared to many of the CPA staffers) and my work involved trying to keep them safe without preventing them from accomplishing their tasks - a sometimes delicate balance. More importantly, it often gave me the "fly on the wall" perspective to really see how they operated, how they were received, and how much of themselves they committed to their efforts.

That commitment was near total. And the risks most were willing to accept in attempting to carry out their tasks were astounding. The GC (governate coordinator) in Ramadi drove along one of the most dangerous roads in Iraq every day to reach his office. He'd had one of his armored Suburbans destroyed by an IED (while he was in it), another of his vehicles barely escaped an RPG attack. His office was attacked regularly during the insurgent response to the April Fallujah operation. But he kept at it, in the heart of what is essentially insurgent territory. He represented hope and the future amid the nonstop terror campaign waged by insurgents.

When my vehicle was ambushed and disabled outside of Fallujah the first week I was incountry, it never occurred to me that, yes, I could quit and leave. Why not? Because he was there, in Ramadi every day, with no tactical training, doing a job far more difficult than mine. And he wasn't about to quit. He was literally willing to lay his life on the line every day simply to make Iraq a better place. I am proud to say that I served with such brave and dedicated Americans.


Iraq
CPA
Heroism

Where's the beef? (Updated)

I've been working my way through a lot of the conservative/neo-con/right wing blogs as they celebrate Bush's victory and what it means for the "War on Terror" as of late. But I've noticed a troubling trend. Most seem convinced that this war will continue for some time - and that the U.S. response should be a mix of military, political, and economic actions. If military action is going to remain a "leg" in this new strategic triad, then why has the Bush Administration so adamantly refused to permanently expand our ground forces?

First, let's take a look at some of the rhetoric. From Austin Bay's strategy page:

The re-election of George W. Bush bodes well for peace in 2020. A John Kerry victory would have cost us an additional two years of blood, toil, sweat, and tears -—the two years it would take the Kerry Administration to discover that the Bush Administration’s strategy in the War on Terror is the right one.

However, the linked threat posed by theo-fascist terrorism, petty despots, and the proliferation of weapons of capable of killing innocents by the millions remains the Hell Forumla for the 21st century.

Like it or not, the bitter task of breaking our planet’s Hell Formula falls on the American people, led by American presidents a decade after Bush leaves office.

From Victor Davis Hanson:

Modern Western man is faced with this awful dilemma, from which he recoils: real peace and successful reconstruction are in direct proportion to the degree that an enemy is humiliatingly defeated and so acknowledges it—the aim being that he will come to feel that he cannot go on being what he has been. To that end, absolute victory may encompass everything from Hiroshima to bombing downtown Belgrade as the price for tranquillity and a democratic and humane postbellum Japan and the Balkans. Not finishing off a defeated Republican Guard in 1991 or sparing looters in April 2003 or breaking off the siege of Fallujah in April 2004 only ensures that more corpses will pile up later. President Bush’s so-called Axis of Evil in 2002—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—all had in common unfinished business with the U.S. military that had led to a bellum interruptum of sorts. In contrast, the Grenada communists, Noriega, Milošević , and the Taliban were all defeated, and only after that were their societies rebuilt—and thus Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan now do not belong to the axis of anything. Perhaps for all the debate over how to fight irregular wars in an age of global terrorism, we would do best to recall the realistic, if inelegant, words of the owner of the Oakland Raiders, the infamous Al Davis: “Just win, baby.”

What are the folks in uniform saying? Black Five brings us this (hat tip to Murdoc):

2. Troop Strength - All believe that the Army needs more than 30-40,000 additional soldiers. And most believe the Marines should be significanlty plussed up in the MEUs (and all should be SOC). Troop strength increases will take time, but will be necessary for years.

Three think that a draft will be necessary if Iraq continues to need over 100,000 troops.

Five think that military action outside of Iraq and Afghanistan is imminent. Syria was considered the most likely candidate for an introduction into the capabilities of the US military...

One thought that the entire Reserve force would be mobilized in the near term.

3. Donald Rumsfeld should resign - Everyone likes Rummy. However, nine soldiers think that he should resign immediately after the elections in Iraq. The rest think June is more appropriate for Rummy to step down.

If a Commander in the field had the same kind of problems that SecDef had, he/she would have been removed. It's a responsibility issue, not a like/dislike issue. He should accept responsibility and step down. Most feel that it's not fair to have higher standards for Soldiers than for the Civilian leaders of the DOD.

Half thought that General Schoomaker should resign as Army Chief as well.

If this is truly the case, if the decision was made before entering Iraq that this was a long term project to spread democracy as a means of securing our own national interests, why did the Bush Administration wait for so long before even considering the idea of expanding our combat forces? It'd sure be nice if W. were to perform a little bit more maintenance on the family ride before turning the keys over to his replacement, come 2008. Fox News provided this insight back in August:

While the Army's transformation effort has earned praise from retired Lt. Gen. Theodore Stroup, Stroup says more troops are needed.

The Army is underfunded and overburdened compared to the other services, and needs a bigger slice of the defense budget.

"The other service departments are going to have to give up some percentage points because today you have a strategy/resources mismatch," Stroup said, adding, "I can say it because I am retired."

Stroup said the Army should be expanded by 40,000 to 50,000 men. He cautioned that this expansion should only take place if the money is available to avoid putting too much strain on the force and pulling money from elsewhere. He said the Army does not have enough soldiers to handle current missions, citing the inability to devote enough forces to Haiti as one example.

As I have (vigorously) argued over at TIA, I understand why the U.S. is in Iraq - regardless of whether there was an active WMD program. Of all our options available in dealing with Iraq, invading was probably the "least worst."

• Leave Saddam in place? Bad idea...especially when one of his nut case sons had replaced him.
  
• Foment a coup? Hm...what sort of ruthlessness that would have been required for such a coup to work? Who would we have been supporting to replace Saddam? When do you suppose HE would have held elections?
  
• Wait for Saddam to fall and civil war to sweep the country without a moderating force in place? I don't think you would have liked those consequences...neither would the Iraqis.
  
• Leave sanctions in place? They were simply causing common Iraqis to suffer while the Baathists solidified their grip on the country.
  
• And, of course, leaving Saddam in power would have meant a continued presence in Saudi Arabia - further exacerbating our problems with Islamists.

But if we KNEW war was the "least worst" choice for dealing with Saddam, why wasn't an effort made earlier to expand the army and marines? I don't get it. If it was a matter of money...well, it's costing a lot more NOW to freeze people in the military, re-equip National Guard and Reserve units, pass out sizeable retention bonuses, and build new units on the fly than it would have cost to plan for the expansion in 2002.

I argued against blaming Rumsfeld for the lack of armored vehicles in Iraq here. I also argued for replacing him because of larger issues. Unfortunately, I ALSO argued for carefully weighing an expansion of the army. Upon further review, I believe THAT argument was mistaken. From 20 December:

Let me be clear on where I stand. I think Rumsfeld needs to go. In my opinion, he has created too much tension between federal bureaucracies, pushed for too large a role in Iraq's post-invasion reconstruction, and accepted too easily the arguments of folks like Wolfowitz that occupation would be a piece of cake.

But those reasons are completely removed from what is now being introduced into the argument.

• We don't want a secretary of defense who hovers over invasion planners' shoulders, "deciding how to fight the war once it begins."

• We don't want a secretary who chooses to personally write the TO&E for tactical units based on the "guidance" of Spec-4s and reporters.

• We don't want a secretary who thinks massive, ruthless American occupation will do anything other than alienate the entire population, laying the groundwork for a longer - rather than shorter - occupation.

• We don't want a secretary who thinks we need to permanently add tens of thousands of troops to the military because we have high short-term troop requirements.

• We don't want a secretary who chooses to listen to the last generation of military leaders who refuse to budge from Cold War force structures.

• We DO want a secretary of defense who can stand and say, "We messed up. We need to improve that. We're looking into ways to do that better."

• We DO want a secretary who will continue to reshape the military to better fit today's threat environment.

• And we DO want to take every possible step to ensure Iraqi elections produce a legitimate enough government to rally common Iraqis to its cause.

Update:

2Slick had this well-written, well-thought out response to Black-Five's interview series. Me? I still think Rumsfeld needs to go. And I'm coming around to the idea that we need a larger standing army if we're going to more actively push for democracy abroad.

Update 2:

Andrew Olmsted asks a question similar to mine. Where is the push to 'up' the force?

Iraq
Military

A surprising piece from the L.A. Times.

This one sorta goes against conventional wisdom:

Recent polls show support is growing for a slate of candidates led by the former neurologist. Nearly a third of Iraqis now believe that Allawi, who was appointed by the United States as prime minister in June, has been "very effective." That's twice the number who thought so last fall, according to a survey conducted in January by the International Republican Institute, a Washington-based group with links to the GOP.

Take a look at how it relates to a previous posting ref: Prof. Cole...clearly it must be some sort of nefarious conspiracy, since no one the U.S. has ever supported is anything more than a pawn, right...?

I'm sure Mike Ubaldi would tell you this is no surprise to him.

And, of course, just to throw some rain toward the parade...make sure you focus on who conducted the survey and who they have links with. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, right...?

Update:

From Powerline, we have these additional poll numbers suggesting a great deal more hope and optimism among Iraqis than conventional (MSM) wisdom has suggested of late.



Iraq

U.S. mulls shouting twice as loud. Details at 11.

From CNN we have this:

As part of an intensified effort to capture terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, the State Department is considering doubling the bounty on his head to $50 million, State Department officials said Monday.

I can't decide if I prefer phrasing it, "State Department is considering yelling into hurricane at 100 decibels as opposed to 50..."

...or if, "State Department makes bin Laden reward 'go to ELEVEN!'" has more punch. What do YOU think...?

For those of who scratching your head at home, I offer the following excerpt from This is Spinal Tap. I didn't realize there were so many fans at Foggy Bottom....

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: ........These go to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: The sustain, listen to it.
Marty DiBergi: I don't hear anything.
Nigel Tufnel: Well you would though, if it were playing....

Terrorism
Humor

Locking up both sides of the argument

I took a little tour of Oliver Willis's site today and came across the same phenomenon I've seen elsewhere lately: the incongruous argument. What do I mean by that? Well, let's take a look.

Entry #1 - dated Mon, 24 Jan:

-Democrats will work to increase our Special Operations forces by 2,000 to attack the terrorists where they are and to protect our freedoms here at home. We will further enhance our efforts against enemies by targeting the institutions that spawn new terrorists.

Entry #2 - dated Sun, 23 Jan:

Not satisfied with the gross negligence that has led to the deaths of hundreds of soldiers in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld's tentacles grow...

Secret unit expands Rumsfeld's domain

The previously undisclosed organization, called the Strategic Support Branch, arose from Rumsfeld's written order to end his "near total dependence on CIA" for what is known as human intelligence. Designed to operate without detection and under the defense secretary's direct control, the Strategic Support Branch deploys small teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists alongside newly empowered special operations forces.

Don't blame me, I voted for the good one.

MORE: John McCain says he's going to "raise questions". Oh, golly, I bet they're really scared now! He might wag his finger at them, even...

So which is it, Oliver? Are we going to "increase our Special Operations forces by 2,000 to attack the terrorists where they are and to protect our freedoms here at home[?]" Or are we going to attack any action taken by a Republican-led Pentagon that might match our rhetoric but leaves us without the ability to take credit?

What does the Agency have to say about this dreadful act? From the WaPost:

At the CIA, an official who declined to be named said of Pentagon intelligence initiatives that "they've got the same objectives we do." Defense intelligence units, the official said, are especially well suited to collecting battlefield information on "bridges and tunnels and things like that, and frankly we don't always want to be pulling the CIA resources to do those."

On broader missions not directly related to combat operations, the official emphasized that the CIA has to have the final say. New Pentagon internal guidelines say a mission will be deemed "coordinated" with the CIA after 72 hours' notice to the agency. "It's critical not only to have coordination, but . . . we strongly believe the [CIA] chief of station has to be responsible" for intelligence activities in each country, the official said.

Those dastardly Pentagon fiends! Forming a unit that undermines our rhetoric! We must protest as loudly as possible! Gimme a break.

But I'm sure Oliver knows all about the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic-level intelligence. And I'm sure it would suit him just fine to have CIA case officers with no military background responsible for gathering specific military information required to "further enhance our efforts against enemies by targeting the institutions that spawn new terrorists" in place of mindless military robots who are obviously nothing more than puppets of Rumsfeld.

And I'm sure he thinks it's a GREAT idea to have said case officers put aside their strategic interests (or commit all of their assets) in the name of pinpointing low-mid level terrorists. Who needs to know what the leaders of other nations are thinking? We need to get these guys out collecting information they don't understand! ASAP!

Come on, guys. Just because the idea was implemented during Rumsfeld's tenure doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. Let's examine the circumstances surrounding the unit's formation, its goals and missions, and whether it fills a legitimate need before we slap on the war paint and throw out a knee-jerk partisan response. Hasn't anyone shown him the difference between RED and GREEN Kryptonite? Geez.

The Armchair Generalist notes, quite fairly, that the issue of concern should be proper notification to Congress rather than the unit's existence and mission.

Update:

Max Boot elaborates on the leftish desire to paint Pentagon moves as a giant neo-con conspiracy here, as he dissects the Seymour Hersh article that did much to start this whole train rolling:

In the rest of the piece, he writes about how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expanding the Pentagon's covert anti-terrorism activities and intelligence-gathering. True enough. According to Bart Gellman of the Washington Post (a real investigative ace), Rumsfeld has created a new spy unit to make up for the CIA's deficiencies. Gellman's Jan. 23 story has all sorts of specifics that the New Yorker piece lacks, including the unit's name (the Strategic Support Branch). Hersh's contribution is to spin this into something nefarious by including anonymous speculation that military operatives might sponsor foreign "execution squads" or even carry out "terrorist activities." Umm, guess we'll have to take your word for it, Sy.

Daily disclaimer: Max is one of those fellas who could be described as a neo-con, depending on the definition being used.

Politics
Military
Intelligence
Kryptonite