Unwanted Thoughts Of A Rank Outsider

The long awaited vote is on in Scotland. I have absolutely no dog in the question of an independent Scotland. Not a one. Oh, I think there is some Scots blood in me somewhere, but I'm pretty sure it is awash in a sea of Irish and English red that it amounts to not a lot. I certainly have never been one of those Americans that searches back through his genealogy in order to know what tartan to order. I look terrible in plaid anyway.

Indeed, the going on in Scotland lately have been about a form of nationalism that has very little to do with the American experience. In many ways the Union that forms the UK is a little more in keeping with our national experience in the US than the clarion call of the monoculture that is good old fashioned nationalism. Its particularly strange as those most loudly proclaiming the need for Scottish independence seem to have no idea how conservative such a call really is. As well, the romance of it all can be a bit intoxicating, especially for us American observers. The United States has very little that smacks of the "ancestral" about it. When we use the term it is almost always used metaphorically. To live in a place where it actually applies.... well, that is the stuff of fiction for us.

Which may explain why part of me hopes Scotland says "no" today. The ancestry is real all right, but I wonder if the romance of it all isn't just as fictional for them as it would be for us. Think of the fantasies of those who romanticize the antebellum South. In these flights from the real world difficulties are never faced and the drawbacks and dark sides are ignored or completely forgotten. In the debates on Scottish independence I've seen on CSPAN there was a disturbing amount of faith put into slogans by the "Yes" proponents, as if translating them into reality would be the easy part. No. Spouting slogans is the easy part. All the rest of it is very hard.

Whatever happens all I can say is good luck to the people of Scotland, and the UK as a whole.

Wait? This won't affect the price of Scotch...
will it?  

I Don't Believe It

I mean that literally. I think this will turn out to be bullshit: Hadley Climate Research Unit has been hacked

Supposedly, someone broke into CRU and swiped a huge amount of files (emails and the like) and dumped them out on the web. Included (so they say) is an email which seems to show open falsifying of data to produce warming that didn't happen.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe anybody would be this stupid.

UPDATE:

Turns out CRU is confirming the hack, and Phil Jones is starting to offer "What I meant to say...."

Jeeeeeezus.

UPDATE X2:

It looks like Climate Audit is suffering a denial of service attack. I guess the AGW crowd is playing by "The Chicago Way." Of course this is stupid as we have no idea who did the original hack on CRU, and there is no way Steve McIntyre had anything to do with it. Grow up people, or at least stop acting guilty. Adding: CA is available again, but damn slow. No word that a DOS attack actually happened.

UPDATE X3:

Still almost nothing about this in the MSM. The BBC did a quick story that mentioned only the hack itself and none of the information disclosed. Roy Spencer asks a pertinent question:

If the hacked e-mails — with incriminating content — just happened to be Sarah Palin’s, does ANYONE believe that news reports would avoid disclosing the content of those e-mails?

Not me.

UPDATE X4:

Hot Air has a good run down of some of the most salacious bits of this.

Funny how the American MSM have suddenly decided that Global Warming news isn't anything people are interested in. (The lie in that is shown by the fact the IMW is having more visits then any other day this year...and it's only 1PM.)

A Cause For Second Thoughts?

Here is the story from the Des Moines Register: Folks in Clinton see jobs, not fear

Mention the massive prison across the Mississippi River and you see a lot of smiles in this city.

People here know all about the federal government's tentative plans to transfer alleged terrorists from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a maximum-security facility a 15-minute drive away in Thomson, Ill.

And they are a bit amused by some media reports that area residents are worried that terrorists will be running loose in the streets.

"I've talked to probably 15 or 20 people about this," said Dick McLane, a retired Clinton business owner. "I haven't heard a single person say they're worried about a terrorist breaking out or about this area becoming a terrorist target."

This is most likely true, and I wouldn't normally have any qualms if I lived in the area, except for one thing.

Here is an aerial picture of the facility.



So, we are proposing to send a bunch of fanatical Islamists, who have just as fanatical Islamist buddies, to a prison which is vaguely Star of David shaped.

What could go wrong?

More On A Honduran Win

The WSJ seems to be looking at matters in a similar fashion to the IMW. (They could do worse, right?) Honduras 1, Hillary 0

The big news in Honduras is that the good guys seem to have won a four-month political standoff over the exile of former President Manuel Zelaya. Current President Roberto Micheletti agreed yesterday to submit Mr. Zelaya's request for reinstatement as president to the Supreme Court and Congress, and in return the U.S. will withdraw its sanctions and recognize next month's presidential elections...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trumpeted the result as a diplomatic triumph, but it's more accurate to say that it extricated her and the Obama Administration from the box canyon they entered by throwing in with Mr. Zelaya. Hondurans had deposed Mr. Zelaya on entirely legal grounds for threatening violence and violating the country's constitution in an attempt to run for a second term. The U.S. nonetheless meddled and demanded that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated.

But Hondurans refused to bend, and the State Department apparently decided at last that Honduras was going to go ahead with its election whether the U.S. agreed or not. The Honduran compromise provided Mrs. Clinton with an elegant diplomatic exit.

Washington and the Organization of American States have now promised to send observers and recognize the elections; there will be no amnesty for Mr. Zelaya if he is charged with a crime; and the zelayistas will renounce their plans to call for a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution. If Mrs. Clinton wants to call this a victory, it is—for Honduras.

Honduras Wins, Zelaya (And Obama) Loses

There was never going to be a scenario in which the big bully (i.e. the Obama administration) wasn't going to be allowed to save face, but in the end of the day Honduras wins big here: Honduran rivals agree a deal to end crisis

Honduras' de facto government has accepted a U.S.-driven deal that opens the door for the return to power of President Manuel Zelaya, toppled in a military coup four months ago...

Roberto Micheletti, who took over the country within hours of Zelaya's ouster, had repeatedly refused to step aside to let the leftist return, but he softened his position on Thursday.

"I have authorized my negotiating team to sign a deal that marks the beginning of the end of the country's political situation," Micheletti told reporters on Thursday night.

He said Zelaya could return to office after a vote in Congress that would be authorized by the country's Supreme Court. The deal would also require both sides to recognize the result of a November 29 presidential election and would transfer control of the army to the top electoral court.

So, yes, Zelaya can come back, but only if the Honduran Congress says he can and only if he is reduced to a neutered whelp.

What a pathetic "victory" for the Obama administration.

How to Win Friends and Influence People, Obama Style

QandO points me to this quote from Lech Wałęsa:

“Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes. This is another example,” Mr Walesa told TVN24. “[Poles] need to review our view of America, we must first of all take care of our business,” he added.

“I could tell from what I saw, what kind of policies President Obama cultivates,” the former president added. “I simply don’t like this policy, not because this shield was required [in Poland], but [because of] the way we were treated,” he concluded.

Wałęsa is of course wrong here in his categorical statements about what Americans care about.

But, given the back-handed treatment of Poland by the Obama administration, I can see where he is coming from here.

Apocalypse Now Later

So, it looks like we won't all be dying from Swine Flu.

You mean I'll have to give up hacking my lungs out until I expire? That will be a blow. I'll have nothing to do!

Besides, we haven't had time for "scientists" to tell us it was caused by SUV's.

The Only Kim Jong Il Is A Dead Kim Jong Il?

Japanese Expert: North Korean Leader Kim Jong Il Died in 2003

Is Kim Jong Il for real? The question has baffled foreign intelligence agencies for years, but a veteran Japanese expert on North Korea says the “dear leader” is actually dead — and his role is played by a double.

The expert says Kim died of diabetes in 2003 and world leaders, including Vladimir Putin of Russia and Hu Jintao of China, have been negotiating with an imposter. [sic]

He believes that Kim, fearing assassination, had groomed up to four look-alikes to act as substitutes at public events. One underwent plastic surgery to make his appearance more convincing. Now, the expert claims, the actors are brought on stage whenever required to persuade the masses that Kim is alive.

Crazy, right? Hmm...I will point out this, however. Look at these two pictures of the "Glorious Leader"
2001


2006

Look specifically at the ears. If someone wanted to argue those are different ears who could argue otherwise?

Granted, all this would prove is the existence of at least one "double." It wouldn't prove the man was dead.

Hoisted By Their Own Stupid Petard

"Che Chic" comes back to bite FARC thugs right in the butt.

Yesterday, two white helicopters arrived in a jungle clearing where the hostages were being held. The men in the helicopters looked like guerrillas, Betancourt later said, describing details of the rescue at the military airport.

"Absolutely surreal," she said, noting that some of the men who got off the helicopter wore T-shirts emblazoned with the iconic image of the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. "I thought this was the FARC," she said.

Their hands bound, the hostages were forced aboard the helicopters, wondering where they would be taken next in their long ordeal. But once aboard, Betancourt said, Cesar and another guerrilla were overpowered and the crewmen announced that the passengers were now free. "The chief of the operation said: ’We’re the national army. You’re free,’ " she said. "The helicopter almost fell from the sky because we were jumping up and down, yelling, crying, hugging one another. We couldn’t believe it."

Classic, and very well done by the Colombian military.

(H/T to QandO)

Why Is Juan Cole Always Wrong?

Or is it just when I'm looking?

This spring we were all treated to Cole cheer leading for the Mahdi army in its battle against the Iraqi military.

Let's do a little time line:

March 26:

The truce between the Mahdi Army and the US military has broken down, putting a question mark over the future of the 'surge'.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly SCIRI, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim); the Da'wa Party led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; and the Badr Corps paramilitary of ISCI have fled their HQs in Basra and Kut, because of the threat that they will be stormed by Mahdi Army militiamen [seeking revenge for the current offensive], In fact, some such buildings already have been attacked.

...

Al-Zaman says its sources in the Sadr Movement confirmed that the Mahdi Army has gained control of the main road between Amara and Basra, allowing it to cut the government troops off from military supplies.

March 28th:

Mahdi Army Stands Firm in its Basra Neighborhoods

People are asking me the significance of the fighting going on in Basra and elsewhere. My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists coming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists' paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote.

April 1st:

Why did Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attack the Mahdi army in Basra last week?

Despite the cease-fire called Sunday by Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the millions-strong Sadr Movement, last week's battles between the Mahdi army and the Iraqi army revealed the continued weakness and instability of al-Maliki's government. Al-Maliki went to Basra on Monday, March 24, to oversee the attack on city neighborhoods loyal to al-Sadr. By Friday, the Iraqi minister of defense, Abdul Qadir Jasim, had to admit in a news conference in Basra that the Mahdi army had caught Iraqi security forces off guard. Most Sadrist neighborhoods fought off the government troops with rocket-propelled grenades and mortar fire. At the same time, the Mahdi army asserted itself in several important cities in the Shiite south, as well as in parts of Baghdad, raising questions of how much of the country the government really controls. Only on Sunday, after the U.S. Air Force bombed some key Mahdi army positions, was the Iraqi army able to move into one of the Sadrist districts of Basra.

By the time the cease-fire was called, al-Maliki had been bloodied after days of ineffective fighting and welcomed a way back from the precipice. Both Iran, which brokered the agreement, and al-Sadr, whose forces acquitted themselves well against the government, were strengthened. As of press time Tuesday morning in Iraq, the truce was holding in Basra, and a curfew had been lifted in Baghdad, though sporadic fighting continued in the capital. Estimates of casualties for the week were 350.

The campaign was a predictable fiasco, another in a long line of strategic failures for the sickly and divided Iraqi government, which survives largely because it is propped up by the United States.

April 4th:

Clashes Continue in Basra

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that clashes continued to be fought in Basra on Thursday between Iraqi government troops and the Mahdi Army militia.

The LAT says Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is intent on pursuing his struggle with the Mahdi Army militia, not only in the southern port city of Basra but in other Shiite cities as well. Apparently he thinks big talk will substitute for successful military operations.

...

Jonathan Steele argues that al-Sadr came out of the episode much strengthened. He suggests that Cheney may have greenlighted the operation when he was there, in hopes that it would produce dramatic good news in time for the upcoming Petraeus / Crocker appearances before Congress. If so, it backfired big time.

April 13th:

Likewise, the ISG pointed out that the Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran. (See below). It fought on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's side in the recent Basra fighting. In other words, the government side was the pro-Iranian side. The Mahdi Army and Sadr neighborhood militia forces they attacked were largely Iraqi nativists who bad-mouth Iran.

...

Iran admitted on Saturday that it had negotiated a ceasefire by the Mahdi Army when approached by Iraqi parliamentarians (who were from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Da'wa Party, al-Maliki's backers). In other words, while Bushco blames Iran for Iraq's instability, in fact the Iranians have tried to and often succeeded in calming the situation down.

Ma`d Fayyad of al-Sharq Al-Awsat even says, writing in Arabic, that the Iranians were annoyed with Muqtada al-Sadr over his militia activities and have more or less expelled him from Iran (though Iranian authorities denied he was ever there).

[Just imagine the mental contortions one has to do to reconcile those last three paragraphs. On second thought, don't try it. Its a good way to sprain a lobe.]

See, the whole Basra episode was an unmitigated disaster for al-Maliki and the Bush administration, leaving Iran and the Mahdi army stronger than before. So says Juan Cole.

Here is how the AP sees it today:

Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.

...

Many Sunni insurgents have stopped fighting and turned against al-Qaida in Iraq, which U.S. commanders say still remains a threat.

But those Sunni groups — loosely organized and still armed — could resume the fight if the Shiite-dominated national leadership fails to deliver on promises of economic help and a share of power. Critics believe U.S. support for such groups, known collectively as "awakening councils," could set the stage for future conflict.

In the meantime, Sunnis who once shunned politics are gearing up to contest provincial elections this fall.

Shiite militiamen are reeling after military setbacks in Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City districts this spring. But it's unclear whether militia chief Muqtada al-Sadr has given up violence entirely as his Shiite rivals seek to undermine his support among the majority Shiite community.

...

In recent weeks, however, the factious, Shiite-led Iraqi government has won a measure of public support by standing up to Shiite and Sunni gunmen — even if a list of other goals such as constitutional amendments and a new oil law remain unfulfilled.

A new sense of confidence has emerged after recent Iraqi-run military operations against Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida, in the northern city of Mosul and against Shiite militiamen in Basra and Baghdad.

At first, the Basra operation stumbled badly, with al-Sadr's militiamen fighting government troops to a standstill as their Shiite allies in Baghdad launched attacks against the U.S.-protected Green Zone. American and Iraqi troops rushed to Basra from as far as western Iraq after local army and police units failed to perform.

But a combination of military force and political pressure on al-Sadr produced a cease-fire, enabling Iraqi security forces to expand control of part of Baghdad and Basra that had been under militia domination for years.

Brimming with confidence, Iraqi forces are turning their attention to southern Maysan province, long believed a hub of a smuggling network bringing weapons from Iran to Shiite extremists in Iraq.

And thus Cole is completely and utterly repudiated.

Cole is that worst of scholars who sees events completely through his political ideology. Things have to go badly in Iraq because Bush is the president. Therefore, it doesn't matter what actually happens in Iraq. Ideology always trumps facts.

The Cole's of the world are really complete narcissists who say "If my ideas are wrong, I don't want to be right."

Crazy Talk

The Washington Post has looked at Iraq recently:

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Obama has not shown himself to be able to adjust from his knee-jerk ideologically motivated positions to this point, so I see no reason why that should change now. A large part of his "coalition" was made up by folks who hated Clinton's earlier pragmatic look at the use of force in Iraq. (Not to say it might not have been a deeply cynical look as well.) They are not interested in pragmatic calculations about what course we should chart in Iraq. There is only one "morally acceptable" position to hold for these zealots and there is every reason to believe Obama is simply one of them to his very core. (Not that he hasn't also shown he is willing to throw anyone, including his relatives, under the bus if it suits his purposes.)

If this campaign has shown anything it has shown the inability of the Obama campaign to accept when they are dead wrong, and, make no mistake, Obama was dead wrong about the surge. It plan for anything other than defeat in Iraq has been a non-starter from day one for Obama. There is no way he can embrace it now without looking foolish and weak.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

In other words, as things are progressing continuing the Bush policies could be the best thing for the nation. Anyone think Obama is man enough to embrace that?

(Gleaned from QandO)

More Suspicions That Sneak

Drezner has a run down on the potential for Al Qaeda's running down: Al Qaeda is losing

Last week, we saw quantitative evidence that terrorist tactics in general -- and Al Qaeda in partcular -- appears to be on the wane.

This week, there's some qualitative evidence that Al Qaeda is losing, and losing badly, among its core constituency -- Muslims sympathetic to the cause of jihad.

Do Democrats still want to surrender?

A Sneaking Suspicion

I suspect we have recently won the war in Iraq.

Alright, who wants to stand up and lose the peace?