I've found an account of a compiled military code of conduct, assembled from service experience in the Balkans upon the peacekeeping effort there.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to the blogosphere, for I no longer recall where I found the link to this. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 07:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

This started as a two-topic post that I've decided to split into two pieces (kind of like the Roman Empire's Western and Eastern divisions) due to the fact that I a) want the first piece out the door and b) haven't finished writing the second piece despite having several days to mull it over.

If I were in more of an irreverent mood, I would have titled this post "Nobody Does It Better", in a conscious nod to Carly Simon's schlocky (and double entendre-sporting) theme song for The Spy Who Loved Me. By the way, she's got a concert DVD out that dates from 1987 or so; it's inexpensive and is supposed to be pretty good. Got to buy that.

Anyways. Den Beste usually has some sort of phrase or section in his writings regarding the war on Islamists that gives me the Evil Calvin Grin. When I get a scanner or something, I'll show you exactly what that is. He's also able to invoke a "huh huh huh" on the order of Butt-head, and I thought I'd point out his latest success:

Nations which are weak or craven increase their chances of being targeted when they appease the Islamists. The Islamists don't seem to be seriously targeting the US any longer because they know that we'll fight back. After 9/11 and after months of sustained operations against Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's now clear that the US won't retreat because of such attacks. Instead, we respond violently to them, causing huge casualties to the attackers, in men lost and organizations obliterated and even nations captured. (Italics mine.)

I was instantly reminded of a quip I found in Harry Turtledove's The Guns of the South, made by a character, Piet Hardie. Hardie held views on racial relations that I found unacceptable, but that doesn't mean the author couldn't give him a good line. He speaks to a Federal army veteran and now slave that he's just purchased: "I can lick you any way you name: bare hands, axes, whips, guns, any way at all. Any time you want to try, you tell me, but you have your grave picked out beforehand."

I suppose that's why I understood President Bush's "Bring it on!" remark. Every time the al-Qaeda types or their cohorts in Iraq get together for a stand-up fight (i.e. force on force, not drive-by assassinations of missionaries, you dirtbags), they lose, and lose badly. We like those fights. Now, occasionally they get lucky and kill some of our people. This is, of course, regrettable. I would prefer that none of our people die in this annoying war. However, a man with a rifle, body armor, training, and comrades of like mind and circumstance is in a better position to defend himself than is a half-awake commuter on his way to the City of New York from the District of Columbia. Thus, I find that sending our troops into battle is preferable. And by the way, Godspeed. I pray every single night for your safety and for your swift & victorious return.

At any rate, we're probably pursuing the proper strategic doctrine. I use 'strategic' in what must be a simplistic understanding of a professional military meaning for the term: "[Strategy] is the area of the practical activity of the higher military and political leadership of the supreme command, and of the higher headquarters, that pertains to the art of preparing a country and the armed forces for war and conducting the war."¹

One can quibble about our operational level decisions such as Iraq. Since I'm more often than not the cold-eyed practitioner of realpolitik (helps that I'm not actually in a position of responsibility), I'll note that while we may have yet to see tremendous gain from inside Iraq, we have seen a positive external benefit in that Libya has decided to come clean. That by itself is almost worth the cost of the war. Crush one bully, and others may conform their conduct to the law, if you will.

When it is also considered that many millions of people no longer live under the boot of an odious SOB and will now have a chance at national self-determination, both the bottom line and the heart are satisified in terms of Iraq.

Second half coming on Saturday.

¹ Scott, ed. Soviet Military Strategy [1975], p. 11).

Posted by: Country Pundit at 10:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 742 words, total size 4 kb.

And no, it's not "Let the Wookiee win", although my strategy could theoretically be compared to pulling peoples' arms from their sockets.

The Spanish electorate has demonstrated that you need less than a dozen or so bombs and 200 casualties to force them to the bombing party's will. Keep that in mind. So what? Well, perhaps we ought to lose track of a three-ship cell of B-52H Stratofortresses every so often. It appears that it only takes a few bombs to make the Spaniards cry 'no mas'; for the price of just a few Mark 82 500 pound bombs, we could make Madrid do whatever we wanted it to. Live-fire accidents and navigational errors happen all the time, don't you know?

"Madrid, Tehran, Mecca, they all look alike. Shaddup about being off-course and drop the bombs, will ya?" We can even get Slim Pickens or Powers Boothe & Rebecca DeMornay (!) to fly the lead Buff. We then of course issue the appropriate apologies---completely sincere, I assure you---and have a junior Administration official make some crack to the appropriate reporters that, "We took a cue from the Islamists and decided to demonstrate that the price of disobeying America was higher than the price of disobeying al-Qaeda."

When you consider that a three-ship cell of Stratofortresses carries in the neighborhood of 300 Mark 82s, we could put 20 bombs in each of the European Union countries and rule those lands forever, all in a single night and without refueling. Leave RAF Fairford before lunch and be back by supper with the whole of Europe in your hand!

World domination has never been easier.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

This is snipped from the preceding post in order to maintain the tone of the first.

If al-Qaeda did do it---still a possibility---then they've picked on the wrong people. If we assume that al-Qaeda is motivated by some sort of "anti-Crusader" mentality, then their action is somewhat rational but also kind of stupid.

What's rational? The Spanish are some of the last folks to have really given the Islamic/Moorish empire a bloody nose. Remember that as late as the 15th century, Spain was still possessed of a significant Islamic occupation presence. In fact, it would take until 1492 to complete the reconquista, the reconquest of Spain. For a brief capsule of that and the Alhambra of Granada, see here.

Ostensibly, the religious motivations for al-Qaeda would be avenging, (five hundred years later) the defeat of Islamic forces. At the same time, they haven't just tweaked the nose of the evil crusader country, they've hit a country that's got ruthless running through its history.

After all, it wasn't called the Spanish Inquisition for nothing. Pit and the pendulum, anyone? This is the country that coughed up Tomás de Torquemada. Given that this war against terror is one that is fought largely in the shadows, are you al-Qaeda men really sure you want your troops charging into that country? The land of Torquemada is also a country that has knitted into its cultural fabric the active enjoyment of a literal bloodsport, namely bullfighting.

I ask al-Qaeda again: Do you really want to mess with the guys who cleaned your clocks five hundred years ago, who produced a man whose name is synonymous with brutal torture, and who think a lot of ritualized slaughter? America's put a beating on al-Qaeda, but we've just got a penchant for porn and precision firepower.

Suppose al-Qaeda thinks it can take the Spanish in warfare and out-do them in brutality, slaughter, fire, whatever. That's nice, Osama. You've bagged about 200 people. Congratulations. The Spanish, on the other hand, pretty much laid waste to every indigenous population south of the Rio Grande and Florida, all for the greater glory of Spain, profit for the crown and self, and to save the souls of those Indians from the fires of Hell.¹ That, friends and neighbors, is destruction practiced as an art.

If given a choice between the all-stars of Islamic cruelty and the all-stars of Spanish conquistadors for the Brutality Bowl, I'll take Cortez & Company, thank you. These Spaniards'll tear you a couple of new orifices, right before they set fire to your flea-bitten hides, and all to the sights & sounds of flamenco performers. At this point for us, it's strictly business---for the Spaniards, it will be all personal.

Good luck and good hunting, Spain.

¹ And no, I'm not one of these indigenous-peoples whiners that considers Christopher Columbus the very devil of Hell. Besides, I'm more interested in what happened in 1607 at Jamestown.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 02:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.

I am, of course, conscious of the attacks in Madrid. It's a nice-but-nasty city, one where your lungs will instantly know that you're not in America any more once you disembark from your plane.

As usual, I've got something to say about the whole deal:

I was listening to NPR this morning and some fellow---not your usual sandalista---suggested that the discovery of the van was possibly a ham-fisted attempt to shift blame. His primary reasons for saying this were twofold:
-The tapes found in the van were religious sermons that were readily available and were not 'propaganda'.
-The ETA may not be monolithic; see some marketplace car bombing in Northern Ireland by the 'Real' IRA back in the late 1990s.

I agree with this man's reservations. Before I go further, let me say that I know precious little about the Basque struggle for independence, and was surprised to know that the French were in the fight against the ETA et cetera. That is not a back-of-the-hand against Paris; I had thought that the Basque question was solely a domestic Spanish issue. Learn something every day, y'do.

The point about the tapes is interesting to me. I would expect religious material in the hands of men about to commit terrorist acts would be something on the order of "DEATH TO THE ZIONIST PIGS AND THEIR CRUSADER ALLIES, ALLAH COMMANDS IT AND YOU WILL GET 72 COPIES OF SALMA HAYEK IF YOU DO THIS!" Conversely, I would not expect them to have tapes of a run-of-the-mill imam reading the five pillars of Islam or talking about how going to Mecca isn't really required if you can't make it, that Allah in his munificence would understand.

Of course, if it were a sophisticated operation by al-Qaeda forces, there might be incentives to try and cover their trail. I can think of a few, but I'll leave it to them to figure it out. No freebies, you dirtbags.

Secondly, the point about ETA factionalism is almost always true when you're dealing with politico-terrorist organizations. Invariably, there's always someone in the ranks who isn't happy that you've stopped bombing and started balloting, regardless of whether the goals of the group are being advanced. Some organizations probably kill dissenters like that, but they can't catch every one.

This problem even extended to the German National Socialists. Ernst Rohm, the leader of the Sturmabteilung (AKA the 'SA'), become dissatisfied with the actions of Adolf Hitler because the little corporal wasn't doing enough to further the socialist goals Rohm had embraced. Rohm had thought that he and his organization were the vanguard of the national socialist revolution, and thus wanted to be a big dog in the NSDAP's arrangements if not the big dog.

Of course, Hitler didn't like competition. Rohm made some public remarks---something about either continuing the original Nazi revolution or having another one---that got ol' Adolf angry, and so Rohm & Co. were purged in "The Night of the Long Knives", 10 June 1934.

That example is listed to show that even some of the best run groups of thugs have their problems and their "mob" to satisfy, unless you kill them. Given the probable resemblance of the ETA to every other politico-terror group, the aforementioned splinter possibility is given credence by me.

But what of the ETA disavowals? The BBC & NPR reported that 'reliable ETA contacts' (not their phraseology) had disavowed the attacks. That in and of itself is not conclusory. I see two possibilities:

a) They didn't do it, and were wanting to their story out in front that while "Yes, we kill Spaniards in the name of Basque independence, we didn't do this because we're not stupid." This would be intelligent damage control, because the ETA's name came up first in public discussion, sort of the ready wrongdoer. If the public got it in their minds that the ETA was responsible, the bombing Basques might get a visit from the Spanish military that otherwise would not have been made.

b) They did do it, and wanted to cover that up for whatever reason, like too much success. "Oops, we've killed too many." At this point, the ETA leadership would want to distance itself because it would not serve their purposes. It would attract the sort of rage that 11 September got from us. The ETA would like fear and weakness; instead, they would get fear backed by rage, which tends to lead to slaughter of the bad guys. If I were an ETA commander and we'd ordered the strike, I'd do my darnedest to back away. I'd hate to have the Spanish army turned loose on me with any remaining gloves off. Similarly, it would require carefully orchestrated political footwork in order to manipulate the circumstances to ETA's advantage at this point.

At the same time, it would be an interesting way to get on top of the Spanish terror heap; perhaps the ETA saw a useful opportunity in the 'failed' op to stick al-Qaeda with the blame and get them annihilated, so that everyone remembers the ETA and doesn't get distracted with a bunch of Arabs. I suppose it would be something on the order of, "We'll keep the license on killing Spaniards, thank you."

Further ruminations may follow. My second point in this post is now going to be a separate post, due to its less analytical content. The people of Spain are in my prayers.

UPDATE: Matthew Stinson's remarks and round-the-web research are here; go read them.

The Swanky Conservative has found this site about the ETA.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 935 words, total size 6 kb.