In the
comments to my last post, Analogcabin regular Billy Sumday brought up a point that I wanted to respond to, until it became clear that my foam-flecked rant would take up more than 1000 characters or whatever the arbitrary OSHA limit on comments is. I could have spaced a response over several comments, but I don't like to do that. It inflates the comment number, when it's really just one long-winded opinion that only makes itself look like a discussion. You know, kind of like the Democratic debates. Anyway, here's Sumday, on the importance of involving the U.N. in Iraq:
It would be bad for Bush but great for America, our soldiers, our international reputation, and most importantly, the future of Iraq.
This is what Kerry says, and I hear some variation of it all the time.
But
how?
How does it help our soldiers? Nobody suggests that they won't still be doing all the heavy lifting. While a larger contingent of international troops
might allow us to bring some overextended Reserve and Guard troops home, that benefit might not be worth it. After all, there are plenty of international troops in Iraq now, and they're not rotating our guys out. And with good reason. When you put fresh troops in place somewhere like Iraq, they have to learn everything all over again.
Liberals have this fetish about coalition warfare, which completely ignores that its primary advantages are political, not military. Military alliances can forge bonds of friendship and cooperation between peoples that can last for generations. And that's great. But it does
not necessarily translate into direct benefit for the guys on the ground when the bullets start flying.
I'm not the JCS Chairman, but I have been on the ground in a number of international joint exercises and I will tell you: they're a mess. It's hard enough to coordinate operations between the Army and the Marines, let alone throwing in troops from a different country. First of all, there's the language barrier (and, given that the typical liberal's idea of coalition warfare is an Up With People fantasy painted with all the colors of the wind, we're talking six or seven languages here). In addition, the various forces don't just come from different cultures, but they have different
internal cultures as well: different philosophies of command, different rank structures, different experience levels, different tactical doctrine, different comm systems, different vehicles, different equipment, different weapons, and different logistical needs fed by different supply systems. If your Russian contingent runs low on 5.45mm ammunition, and all you have at the supply base is 7.62x51mm, guess what? Ivan's going to be throwing rocks. This stuff
matters, and we haven't even talked about what happens when the enemy shows up. This problem would extend to all levels of a U.N. op in Iraq, from combat to conference. If too many cooks spoil the broth, the U.N. is the frigging Sorbonne.
Fine, you may say, but it would still be useful to get the U.N. to pony up some money and manpower to help with reconstruction, to reduce the budgetary strain. Well, sure. But the U.N. never gives money without expecting something in return. What they would want is control over the Iraq operation. After all, isn't that what people mean when they want to "get the U.N. in and the U.S. out?" And we would be crazy to let them have it.
The majority of member nations in the U.N. are not democracies (it should more properly be called the United Governments), and we should never forget that. Iraq's Arab neighbors, in particular, did not like Saddam but are not happy about the prospect of an Iraqi democracy that might give their own populations ideas, or a pro-U.S. Iraq that might cut into their aid from Uncle Sam. U.N. control of Iraq would give them the opportunity to monkeywrench that possibility to their heart's content. The opportunity to thwart a U.S. operation in their home turf would just be yummy icing.
But what about international "legitimacy" and our world reputation? Asking the U.N. to provide "legitimacy" is like asking your crack dealer to be a character witness at your trial (yes, I've seen it, and the guy got the death penalty). The benefit of U.N. leadership on world opinion is mostly hype. Europeans would love it, but the rest of the world would likely consider it a fig leaf. Remember, the terrorist-enabling segment of the Muslim world and their satellite offices in the international "peace" movement have already, and sincerely, compared the Iraq war to the
Nazi conquest of Poland. While extreme, this basic attitude toward the U.S. operation can be found all over the foreign press, on letters pages and internet comment boards. These people are not going to about-face and salute just because the baby blue berets have taken over. And if they do, that's just a sign that their opposition was unserious and never merited our attention in the first place.
If you mean to suggest that John Kerry means that he'll arm-twist the U.N. into footing the bill while the U.S. handles the operation, that would be fine. But I don't for a second believe that's what he means, and even if he did, I don't think he's got the stones to bring it off.
So, let's sum up. Bringing the U.N. to Iraq would hideously complicate the execution of the military mission, while allowing open and covert enemies of the U.S. to sabotage the reconstruction, and doing little or nothing to relieve our troops or improve the U.S. standing in world opinion (to the extent that they ever liked us anyway). On the other hand, the sneers coming from the cafes of Paris would have a slightly more approving cast to them.
No, thanks.
Ofc. Krupke at 12:22 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
18 April 2004
Sen. Kerry is hitting his reliable talking points in his weekly radio address, criticizing the Bush administration's
"stubborn, unilateral" approach in Iraq. Quote:
"The failure of the administration to internationalize the conflict has lost us time, momentum and credibility - and made America less safe.''
On the time and momentum issues, no U.N. war effort has ever succeeded in its main (and daunting) military aims as fast as the U.S. did in Iraq. For all its posturing, the U.N.'s record in reconstruction projects
hasn't been any better either.
As for "credibility", he
is kidding, right? The U.N.'s
management of the Oil-for-Food program makes Halliburton look like the Salvation Army, and their cut-and-run act after their facility was attacked is unlikely to firm up Iraqis' shaky belief in them. The perennially-seething Arab Street regards the U.N. as a tool of the American Empire anyway. Since none of the U.N. shills among the Democratic party have suggested that the U.S. wouldn't still, as always, bear the largest military burden, all this is unlikely to change.
It's a testament to the political deafness of the Bush administration that they seem incapable of
pointing this shit out.
Ofc. Krupke at 6:17 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
16 April 2004
Insurgents in Iraq have
executed an Italian hostage after the Italian government refused to pull all their troops out of Iraq. They have three more hostages, and are promising to kill them all if they don't get their way.
Wonder if this will inspire a rethink by the gang at last week's
"Insurgence Solidarity March" in San Francisco.
Probably not.
Ofc. Krupke at 10:04 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
11 April 2004
Brace yourselves for another
Michael Moore movie.
Just a guess, but I imagine this will be Bush's fault somehow.
Ofc. Krupke at 8:40 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
09 April 2004
It's too bad for
this guy that he doesn't live in Southern City. We have a Traffic Court judge or two that would let him off.
Ofc. Krupke at 9:58 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
07 April 2004
Muqtada al-Sadr is the messianic goon who is currently trying to become the alpha theocrat in Iraq's Shia majority (thus emulating his Iranian
paymasters), and has repeatedly called for violent attacks on U.S. troops and anyone who helps them.
He is also, according to Sen. John Kerry. . .well, see if you can figure out what Kerry
thinks about him:
As Sen. Kerry said in an April 7 interview on NPR, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq. Well, let me. . .change the word 'legitimate'. It belongs to a voice - because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."
Sort of? And I love that "it belongs to a voice", too, like that's some deep insight. President Bush may misunderestimate the strategery of proper grammar, but at least you know what the hell he's talking about.
Meanwhile, Hassan Nasrallah, a relative of Sadr's and a big wheel in Hezbollah (which is "sort of" a terrorist group) said
this:
"We may be unable to drive the Americans out of Iraq. But we can drive George W. Bush out of the White House."
Holy backhanded compliment, Batman!
Memo to Kerry staffers who had to put out the fires caused by his "foreign leaders" comment: somebody smack him.
Ofc. Krupke at 8:39 PM
Permalink |
---------------------
Imagine, for a second, that a group of powerful bureaucrats with tenuous claims to democratic legitimacy had secretly abused their power in order to enrich themselves and line the pockets of their fat-cat corporate cronies in a dizzying web of payoffs, kickbacks, and slush funds. Imagine further that their corruption caused privation and death, while arousing murderous anger against the United States. And that they did it mostly on the U.S. taxpayers' dime.
I am
referring, of course, to the
U.N. Oil-for-Food program in Iraq.
This is the same U.N. that otherwise intelligent people keep trying to tell me should be given a lead role in the rebuilding of Iraq, because it would confer "legitimacy".
I wouldn't trust them with the hummus concession.
Ofc. Krupke at 11:24 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
06 April 2004
I was sitting in the PD this morning, after a long and relatively uneventful stretch on the midnight shift, putting the finishing touches on a carjacking report. This was cause for a little grousing on my part, as I was three patrol areas removed from the incident location, and it came to me by virtue of some bad luck, mere minutes before I was supposed to get off shift and go home. I was in the evidence room off of the front desk in the lobby, when Det. Mayer stopped in. I immediately offered to clear out and give him the desk if he needed it. Det. Mayer had been the senior detective for my patrol area for as long as I'd been with SCPD. A quiet sort, starting to bald on top but with a longish jeri curl in the back, like Miles Davis in his declining years or an older, wiser Rick James, Mayer had been a cop for as long as anyone in the Department can remember. Hence my instinctive deference; at one time or another, Mayer had done just about everything one can do in the SCPD. He was reportedly quite the ass-kicker and name-taker in his day. He had since mellowed, though, and I'd always known him as soft-spoken and pleasant. He always had a quiet greeting and a patient manner, even with a dumb-ass rookie (which in many ways I still am). No, he responded, he just just needed the phone. His cell had run out of juice. I finished the report.
A few short hours later, he was dead.
According to the reports I heard later, Mayer had made an arrest on a guy who had gotten physical and had to be subdued. As Mayer was transporting the prisoner to the County Jail, he'd started to feel sick, and pulled the car over to the side of the road. He had a massive heart attack behind the wheel and was dead before anyone could get to him.
Mayer had had some heart problems in the past, and the exertion of the fight didn't do any good. It's just not the way you think it's supposed to go. It wasn't a desperate crack dealer, or a deranged wife-beater with a kitchen knife, or a hidden gun on a lonely highway traffic stop. But Mayer died in the line of duty just the same. I'd like to see the suspect who fought him go for homicide, but I know it will never happen. As far as I'm concerned, that piece of shit killed Mayer just the same as if he'd shot him.
I've put the black band around my badge, and I may get a call over my next few days off to stand in formation at the memorial service, a flight of blue-suited angels to sing him to his rest.
R.I.P., sir. God knows you deserved better.
Ofc. Krupke at 12:29 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
03 April 2004
Four American security liaisons were killed in an
ambush in Fallujah, Iraq. Their bodies were doused with gasoline and set alight by a mob, which then hoisted the bodies up on a bridge structure and celebrated for the news cameras.
Lefty blogger Kos had this to say: "They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them." He has since yanked the post (you can see a screen capture
here), and
replaced it with a quasi-apology post wherein he blames his callousness, like his dandruff, on President Bush. He also goes on to defend his disdain for the American "mercenaries", who he tars as "dangerous" members of a dishonorable profession that are the subject of "international efforts" to "ban their use".
It should be remembered that, at the time of their deaths, these brutal extralegal button men were offending human rights by
guarding a food shipment.
By the way, remember when Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed in a firefight with the 101st Airborne, and the military displayed their bodies in order to quash rampant rumors that they were still alive? We were told
ad nauseum that this was a crude and stupid mistake, that deeply offended strict Muslim law. The U.S. had unforgivably crossed a line, because any callous display of a corpse would be, we were promised, roundly condemned by the Muslim faithful of every nation.
We're waiting.
Ofc. Krupke at 9:57 AM
Permalink |
---------------------
02 April 2004
Richard Clarke has said that the Clinton administration made the fight against terrorism an "urgent priority", and that President Clinton had authorized a wide array of covert actions by the CIA.
Despite Clinton's February 2002 statement that he had turned down Sudan's offer to turn over Osama bin Laden because there was "no basis on which to hold him", Clinton administration officials insist that the authority included the green light for the CIA to assassinate bin Laden.
This was news to me. It was also, apparently,
news to the CIA.
Ofc. Krupke at 5:49 PM
Permalink |
---------------------