According to Jen Martinez, the Air Force is using the B-52 Stratofortress against targets in Fallujah. Since I'm a fan of the old Strategic Air Command and American jet bombers in general, this is grimly good news. Actually, I couldn't help but get the Evil Calvin Grin when I read about it.

I, in an obvious display of tactical air power genius not seen since Samuel Pierpont Langley, recommended the use of the B-52 in Fallujah a while back.¹ Admittedly, I'm no SAC/ACC planner, so I haven't the foggiest as to how they're being employed. The article quoted by Ms. Martinez does not suggest any sort of tactical employment, but I doubt they're doing the three-ship cell carpet bombing that I suggested. It has been, however, suggested that the B-52s are being used as on-call close air support. And how!

At any rate, I'd hate to be the Baathist in a bathrobe---or whatever it is these guys wear that looks like bedclothes---who had to duel with a Stratofortress' bomb load. After all, it's difficult to do anything with your 72 virgins if you've been reduced to component molecules.

I hear we've lost 11 soliders and Marines to the enemy; I'd like to thank those servicemen for their service & sacrifice, and thank their families for letting us have them. To our valiant forces, good luck and God bless; I pray for your safety and swift victory. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 07:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Senators Kerry and Edwards have made great hay in the last two debates over a supposed figure that America is bearing 90% of the costs, 90% of the casualties, et cetera in Iraq. I think the Vice President caught Senator Edwards short on these numbers in their debate, but I never really put numbers to it.

Luckily, Jed Babbin at National Review Online has, and he finds a different arrangement than the Democratic ticket.

I thought about the whole thing, and something has occurred to me that perhaps needs to be sent to Senators Kerry and Edwards: "Gentlemen. Your statement of casualties in the current Iraqi operations, and your political conclusion subsequently drawn is erroneous. In your conclusion, you neglect the contribution of the Iraqi populace to the recovery effort, and in doing so, you slight them and their sacrifices. Indeed, the Iraqis are suffering at a greater pace than our troops are for the same period. When casualties are to be considered, it is a time for seriousness, and not for cheap electioneering. I would have expected better from someone who has made Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign."

It would probably be a good thing if those folks who share a common aisle with me, and also political liberals, would get this sort of message out.

NOTE: I may have found where "ninety percent" comes from, using Babbin's own numbers. Says he: If you count the number of combat dead from May 2003 to October 2004, Americans are 700 out of about 1540 total (which includes the 750 Iraqi and 90 Coalition casualties), or 45 percent.

I broke out my aging TI-85 and punched in the following equation: 700/(1540-750)

This yields 88.61% of combat dead as American troops, once one excludes 750 Iraqi casualties. Senator Edwards is factually accurate, but his fact is incomplete. The most wry thing I could think of off the cuff about this would be if one were to summarize 2004's hurricane activity, and leave the State of Florida out when calculating economic and property loss.

UPDATE: I'm curious: Are we including Iraqi casualties in "Coalition" body counts? If that's already the case, then that point needs to be made by the Administration on a regular basis. If we aren't, then I would, as a policy suggestion, recommend that we consider the Allawi Iraq as a de facto Coalition partner, and adjust our casualty accounting accordingly.

This would have the effect of taking the wind out of the sails for the Kerry charge, but it would also prevent Senator Edwards from having to fumble like he did against the Vice President's charge that he, Edwards, was demeaning the Iraqi contribution to the politico-military effort.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy recently put some questions to the "hawkish side of the blogosphere" regarding Iraq. Although the comment period has ended, I figured I'd throw up my responses to his questions.

First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

It's irrelevant what I think about the "good idea" of invading Iraq. Our forces are there, and our national honor has been committed, for better or for worse. The only acceptable scenario is to see this through to completion. That completion will, hopefully, entail the creation of a quasi-democratic Iraq that will stop a) being a Middle Eastern nuisance and b) stop acting like the kid who's hiding girlie mags under his mattress when UN/IAEA weapons inspectors show up.

I wasn't, however, impressed of the immediate urgency in invading Iraq. The months-long run-up to war signaled to me that there wasn't any real importance to doing this. The war, as sold, was about weapons of mass destruction. Instead of falling in with 82nd or 101st Airborne upon various suspect sites in a lightning attack, we gave the Baathist regime months to prepare for any such operation. And no, I'm not surprised that we haven't found anything.

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

Frankly put, I don't care. The casualties suffered in this entire campaign have been insignificant, and I'm unconcerned about our poll numbers amongst Iraqis. So long as there will be no "Islamic Republic of Iraq", I'm not too concerned about the future of the country. Furthermore, to clean up a mess, you have to make a separate mess, and thus the reports out of Iraq are not unexpected. Are they welcome? Not particularly, but I'd rather hear the whole picture rather than carefully-staged photo ops with smiling Iraqi children who just love the Army guy that they're standing around.

I do not, however, think that we are getting the full story in Iraq. On the one hand, major media outlets seem bent on describing each major attack as something just short of the 1968 Tet Offensive. On the other hand, I hear a lot about blogs posting rosy letters from soldiers and the distinct theme of "this isn't getting out but it's golden over here". To steal words from that German weasel Joschka Fischer, "Excuse me. I am not convinced."

Inasmuch as obtaining an accurate and complete picture of what is going on in Iraq is not something I'm probably able to do---oh, to have a copy of CIA intelligence estimates, NSA intercepts, and DOD information---I generally find myself actively not listening about the latest report of losses and the oh-so-obvious conclusion that it's a "quagmire". I also tune out rosy reports of how great the country is doing and so forth, and just expect good hard-working Americans, British and Iraqis (and the rest of Senator Kerry's grand diversionary coalition of the bribed and the bought...) to muddle through and make something better from the current mess in Mesopotamia.

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

Let me say this about that: I don't expect a carbon copy of the American process to be installed in Iraq. They're operating in a completely different civilizational, cultural and historical environment; put simply, they are not us so it is folly to expect them to be like us. I am also, to say the least, quite skeptical of Middle Eastern democratization.

The grand scheme of things metric that I'm going to use over time is whether we have to go back and do this again in the next 10-15 years. What I'm primarily looking for in terms of Iraqi development is, at best, the development of another Turkey. That is, my understanding of what Turkey is, i.e. a more-or-less democratic republic where the fanatics in the mosques are kept there by force of arms. That, and the two things I outlined earlier about no longer being a Middle Eastern nuisance and not acting like the kid with the mags under the bed.

Another metric I thought of has already been fulfilled in two places. Ostensibly, the war focused on stopping Saddam Hussein's production of/efforts towards atomic, chemical, or biological weapons, a non-proliferative war if you will. Well, we do know that Saddam Hussein'll never reach for nuclear weapons again, and perhaps the Colonel in Libya has sworn off his CBR program as well. If we can put the brakes on a couple of proliferation programs in the region, then perhaps we've already done enough good, and any success in Iraq will be sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik.

I'm distinctly not going to establish any metrics that have anything to do with Islamist terror. The swamp-draining theory may or may nto work when you've got a potential recruit pool of one billion men, women and children. The reality is that we now live in an age of direct attempts against the several States---no, I'm not going to use that lame term of 'Homeland'---and will be so until radical Islamists either succeed in their jihad or they are snuffed out through a variety of measures.

In any event, my ultimate hope is that our troops are able to return safely, swiftly, and victoriously. I want this whole war thing to be over, dagnabbit.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Cold Spring Shops.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 08:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 955 words, total size 6 kb.

Comrade Commissar's covering some unexplained potential anomalies in the background of the late Mr. Nicholas Berg. I haven't a clue as to the truth of any of it, but gee, that's strange.

Rumors swirling range from contacts with an acquaintance of Zacarias Moussaoui to strange goings-on once he was actually Over There.

Read the whole thing and try to figure out just what the hey is going on here. This article doesn't help clarify things at all. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Everyone who's ever seen the 1970 George C. Scott movie Patton has probably memorized at least one or two lines of dialogue from the opening sequence. Of course, being 1970, the real "Patton speech" couldn't be put on film. I doubt Franklin J. Schaffner would even have tried. (Today, it'd be the centerpiece of the film; it's better than anything Quentin Tarantino's ever come up with.)

Anyways, the guys at Boots and Sabers have reproduced the speech after having a link to it come up in the comments. I won't copy it here, 'cause it really exceeds the standards of content, but I will link it and send traffic their way. Laugh out loud and get the Evil Calvin Grin as you read it.

Click here to read.

UPDATE: Oops, I didn't correctly mention the source of the speech. I also forgot to mention that the real General Patton wouldn't have delivered that speech in a low-pitched growl. From recordings made of the man during the war, he had a rather high-pitched voice, and sounded kind of like an angry old uncle when he talked. Admittedly, that might be a limitation of the technological medium at the time; I still can't figure out why Eleanor Roosevelt and Amelia Earhart (whatta gal!) sound alike on old recordings.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

I continue to be disgusted by the recent performance of the American and Islamist establishments lately.

On the one hand, we are wasting time and focus wringing our hands about this worthless Abu Ghraib story. Message, Mr. President: I DON'T CARE. So some dirtbag enemy "soldiers" got pushed around a bit in a jail. Big deal. I didn't see any heads being sawed off. (The thing with the dog may be a bit much, however.) Message to the Congress as a whole: DROP IT. I wish Rumsfeld had gone to the Hill and said, "I take full responsibility because I ordered these activities. It was necessary to demonstrate to Islamist forces that to oppose the United States is to not only invite death but to guarantee humiliation, torture, and other things. Message: We be bad."

On the other hand, I am outraged at the grisly execution of Nicholas Berg by Islamist forces. Al-Qaeda continues to march forward on the Benjamin Martin Scenario, and their actions may eventually cause a grievous problem for all of Islam. Which way do you turn to pray when Mecca's been reduced to a smoldering hole?

I am a Jacksonian. That means that I don't favor pulling punches (except the NBC punch) in wartime, and I don't tolerate the abuse of our prisoners. The enemy will be relentlessly pursued and annihilated whenever possible. We are obviously not doing this, because Moqtada al-Sadr still draws breath, and the enemy does not fear us. That needs to change. The anguished wails and ululations of Islamic women should ring out in the night as they find their Islamist husbands dead by our hand. America can mean great friendship and cooperation. It should also stand for a fearsome enemy that demands respect or delivers annihilation.

I wholeheartedly reject any suggestion that the Abu Ghraib issue or further ruthless retaliation against the enemy somehow establishes moral equivalence between us and them. We would have laid the mantle of civilization down in order to defend it and to force an end to hostilities. The Islamists, on the other hand, have never been capable of productive civilization; the historically impressive gains of Islamic civilization are beyond their grasp.

The Jacksonian code as spelled out by Mead properly analyzes Abu Ghraib in my opinion. The Islamists, having executed people who could be considered their prisoners, (Daniel Pearl, the four military contractors from Blackwater, and now Nicholas Berg) have invited Mead's dirty war, and I would have no major compunction against watching Iraqi/Islamist POWs be gunned down. (Public relations issues would be the only thing I'd really worry about.)

Andrew Jackson's mindset would probably say something like this: Escalate the violence against our enemies until they collapse. Destroy anything necessary to bring about the end of the war and the defeat of the Islamists. Any and all casualties suffered by their side in pursuit of this goal are acceptable; there is no subsitute for victory.

I am only one man, and my opinion is unrespectable in the halls of Washington. Yet, it may be that there is a rising tide amongst the Jacksonians of this country. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:38 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1385 words, total size 8 kb.

One of the first things that caught my eye about Jen Martinez's A Collection of Thoughts was a piece she wrote on the Douglas AC-47. Any gal who wrote about those sorts of things is readily worth reading.

At any rate, Miss Martinez has posted something on my favorite strategic bomber:

Ode to the Old B-52

O'Great Bird that flys so high,
And looks so graceful in the sky,
Who did its mission great or small,
Who made SAC's men look so very tall.

She came to this land so far away,
And for eight years she would stay,
For most of these years she would fight,
While Charlie cringed in desperate fright.

The men would call her a hulk of rust,
And look at her in great disgust,
She would set there with no fear,
For she knew she had no peer.

To many she was known as the Old Black BUFF,
All her life she was treated rough,
The men who worked on this bird of prey.
Would never know an eight hour day.

Although they called her many names,
Old B-52 remained the same,
Although not a plane of beauty,
She knew how to do her duty.

For many years, TAC had their show,
Now it was time for SAC to have a go,
So it was in 72,
That we launched the B-52.

She was equal to the task,
And North Vietnam felt her vengeful blast,
Their streets in ruins, their buildings alight,
To the peace tables they went, to make things right.

Now it was in 75,
That Old B-52 would homeward fly,
Her work well done, she had no shame,
The decisions were not her's to blame.

Charlie rose and gave a cheer,
For the Old B-52 was leaving here.
But as you know and I do too,
This is not the end of Old B-52.

For she's always there, just one flight away,
To come again and save the day.

---

Miss Martinez notes that this was written by a guy who was at U Tapao in Thailand, doing maintenance on these monsters. The events he references are, of course, Operation LINEBACKER II, authorized by none other than President Richard Nixon. Me, I've only seen a B-52 in flight once, and it was during the Cold War. I was at a school which is more or less on a USAF low-level training run, and the building I was in started rumbling. I thought I heard engines, so I ran outside and looked up. Suspended in the sky, low and slow, was this thing, instantly recognizable as a Stratofortress. It was shaking the ground and thundering its way under a radar site reportedly up on a mountain in the area. Hear that, Mr. Anderson? It is the sound of the Stratofortress; it is the sound of your freedom. Goodbye, Soviet Union. Yes, By Dawn's Early Light is one of my favorite movies. Too bad it's not on DVD.

Jen's fondness for the Buff (headed for 50 years of service, baby!) is one reason I enjoy reading her site. Go and read this patriotic Patton-loving, fire-breathing, veteran-backing gal's website.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 10:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 536 words, total size 3 kb.

I just heard on the radio that "an Arabic website" has posted video of an American being beheaded as revenge for this prison nonsense. (And no, I don't care that a few Iraqis got "treated like women" or "hoo-mill-e-a-ted".)

A brief message to the people responsible: You have now joined the ranks of the Imperial Japanese Army in thinking it's cool to behead our men. Open your history books (assuming that you have them and that you can read, two very big assumptions) and turn to the events of August, 1945. Even as the Japanese war machine was grinding to an eventual halt, they lost two cities in the world's first atomic strikes. As Walter Russell Mead points out, we firebombed Tokyo and others to the ground because it was thought that we were facing a bestial enemy.

You people don't even have the ancient traditions of Japan and its culture to offer as reasons to spare your worthless lives.

The Country Pundit's solution? Escalate the violence. Our soldiers and our civilians over there will know that they face a medieval execution if they surrender, and will fight with further aggression, knowing that there is no surrender to the likes of Islamists. I suggest we begin by inflicting pain on these people. There will be collateral damage. That's fine. I've been losing patience with these people (and the apparent unwillingness of the American people to fight dirty) for quite some time, and I want a permanent solution to this issue.

I am not disgusted by some photographs of naked Iraqis who have been captured in battle against our forces. I don't care that one of them wore a leash and was photographed with a woman holding it. I do not perceive the events at Abu Ghraib as some sort of "stain" on our honor.

I do, however, think that it is imperative that we avenge the execution of our people. The International Committee for the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and the European human rights industry be darned, the beheading of Americans can not be tolerated. Retaliation can begin with the people at Abu Ghraib.

The enemy must fear us and should never see an American President "apologizing" for American forces in pursuit of operational intelligence.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 03:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

Pulled from the Blogs for Bush blogroll (available on the right; scroll down some if necessary) is Frizzen Sparks. I visited there today, and I found this:

NAJAF, Iraq — One of his friends was dead, 12 others lay wounded and the four soldiers still left standing were surrounded and out of ammunition. So Salvadoran Cpl. Samuel Toloza said a prayer, whipped out his knife and charged the Iraqi gunmen.

In one of the only known instances of hand-to-hand combat in the Iraq conflict, Cpl. Toloza stabbed several attackers swarming around a comrade. The stunned assailants backed away momentarily, just as a relief column came to the unit's rescue.

"We never considered surrender. I was trained to fight until the end," said the 25-year-old corporal, one of 380 soldiers from El Salvador whose heroism is being cited just as other members of the multinational force in Iraq are facing criticism.

Additional research indicates that Corporal Toloza used a switchblade knife in this little dustup. I know precious little about knives, so you decide:

A prayer, a blade, and indomitable spirit. Wow. This guy's a beast, and I'm glad that his bold move was rewarded with survival for him and his comrade. The extended entry holds the other photograph of Corporal Toloza from the AP, shot in a square of some sort that is dedicated to the memory of another fallen Salvadoran, Natividad Mendez. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.

I decided to take a look at the NMAM participation site after seeing the address in Jen Martinez's entry on the subject. They've got a "MEDIA-NEWSPAPERS, RADIO, TV" list of things to do, which I've partially reproduced in the extended entry. I've removed things that bloggers can't do, like "project crawls, scrolling, and banners on screen", since none of us have a TV station. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.

Greyhawk has a pair of nifty pictures that illustrate our Fallujah urban renewal project. There won't be any Charles Whitmans operating from this place anytime soon.

TMG also brings us warning of the Arab street's eventual rise. However, it may yet to our advantage, for it seems that the Mahdi army is having a little bit of trouble maintaining discipline with the wearing of the uniform.

I like hearing reports of al-Sadr's fish getting eaten in the peasant sea. Take that, Chairman Mao.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

The militant Palestinian group Hamas has apparently replaced Mr. Rantisi, who ran afoul of an Israeli weapons exercise most recently.¹ This is now several days old and the link in their original post doesn't display the right story. Nevertheless:

GAZA CITY – Hamas has quietly appointed Mahmoud A-Zahar to head the movement in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas sources said Mahmoud A-Zahar, 53, was selected as the organization's new head in the Gaza Strip. A-Zahar succeeds Abdul Aziz Rantisi, who was assassinated in an Israeli missile strike on Saturday.

I suppose that if I were a lawyer in Gaza, I'd start trying to take over the "assassinated Hamas leader" estate management business, or something. One of the posters at the DGCI site has opined that this current bum could be something of a missile magnet, or perhaps the loser in a power struggle. After all, he's probably now got a missile or a guided munition with his name painted on it. Poor fellow.

That being said, I support the policy of anti-Hamas operations. When these goons start seeing that there is a price for standing up and hollering how you're gonna slaughter Jews and make the streets run red with Jewish blood, then perhaps they might start rethinking their policies. Good.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Democrats Give Conservatives Indigestion. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 07:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Jen Martinez points the way to an analysis of Arabist/Islamist warfighting doctrine /theory appearing in the Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute's March 2003 issue.

The article, entitled "The New Arab Way of War" is authored by Captain Peter Layton, of the Royal Australian Air Force. The piece is short, and brutal in several ways. On the other hand, it draws upon history and recent Western (particularly NATO) experience to suggest a way forward. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2007 words, total size 13 kb.

On the issue of the death of the now-former leader of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, The Country Pundit has this to say:

"I note without sorrow the death of Abdelaziz Rantisi. I imagine that he is now explaining his misdeeds to Allah."

The preceding quotes were inspired by Tom Clancy's writings, specifically Executive Orders and The Sum of All Fears.

I am, as are others in the blogosphere, amused by the reports of Palestinians swarming into the streets and swearing vengeance while firing Kalashnikovs into the air. (Come to think of it, I'd like to do that some time.) Nota bene: If you (i.e. the Palestinians) persist in supporting leaders who speak of war and authorize asymmetric warfare against a nation with a standing defense establishment, then you run the risk of there being a military response. Had the Israelis zapped a Palestinian Gandhi, then I would not be so cavalier in dismissing the cries for revenge. However, they killed a man who advocated death to Israel and who was at the helm of an organization which regularly put advocacy into practice. Borrowing from what Valentin Zhukovsky said in Goldeneye, "He was a ruthless man. He got what he deserved."

Getting what he deserved seems to be Israeli policy at this point, according to the Washington Post:

"We are preventing terrorist attacks, and part of the prevention is to go after terrorists like Rantisi," said Gideon Meir, deputy director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. "Anyone who will replace him and will continue this business of terrorism against Israel is a legitimate target."

I approve of the Israeli policy, for what it's worth. This is what you call a protective reaction strike, and better for Rantisi to die than for innocent Jews and brainwashed Palestinians to be killed as result of Rantisi's odious leadership.

On the day Rantisi took over as the Gaza leader of Hamas, he told thousands of supporters at the city soccer stadium that his organization would strike Israel wherever possible.

"We will chase them everywhere," he told the crowd. "We will teach them lessons in confrontation."

It would appear that the Israelis have learned, Mr. Rantisi.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to The Politburo Diktat.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been thinking the last week or so that we need to just flat out kill Moqtada al-Sadr and quit wasting time. What I didn't figure out, however, was how to get around the consequences of that, i.e. a period of increased violence and the likely creation of yet another "martyr of Islam".

My bright idea was to endorse letting the guy off the hook for the time being. He would get to save some face by backing off from his current uprising and show humility to this Sistani fellow, followed by an "isn't-that-awful" car accident or something a few months later that just happens to claim his life. Darn. Funny how that happens, ain't it?

Anyways, I found a better solution that brings an evil Calvin grin:

You can't give al-Sadr his own zone (for obvious reasons), but you can promise it to Sadr's successor. Some greedy underling will betray him in a short period of time, or Sadr will be too busy watching his back to lead any kind of rebellion.

All we need to do is have Bremer or the CPA spokesman make some casual remark that while we have nothing to say to al-Sadr, we are interested in discussions with the man who succeeds him. This can be done shortly, because we've put a whipping on al-Sadr, enough for him to say 'no mas' to some extent. If luck holds, he's got some disgusted subordinates who want to take his place, some of whom might be able to try. This works on the "colonels shoot the generals" notion that Tom Clancy used in Executive Orders and the like, so it's at least plausible in this instance.

I don't know if this would work, but I'm really fond of it. It's a pleasant way to get al-Sadr's attention in a way that turns him inward, and which basically amounts to tossing a bundle of dynamite over the fence into a hostile neighbor's back yard, with a detonator that will go off, if at all, when it feels like it. And best of all, we could repeat the thing if necessary, assuming we honor the initial promise, which I don't categorically suggest.

The obvious problem is replacing the devil we know with the devil we don't, and I'm not entirely convinced that such a course of action is called for here. Had al-Sadr gotten more backing from non-subordinate forces, then maybe we could consider him skilled and crafty, in need of the bundle of dynamite. As it is, he's not the greatest operator in the world, and apparently couldn't talk anyone else into helping him. It may be better to have the bumbler you know. Still, it'd be funny if nothing else.

Heh heh heh.

This is part of a message board for the blog of a guy named TMLutas, who I found through den Beste.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

This news, from Iraq:

"ROME, April 15 (Reuters) -...Fabrizio Quattrocchi, one of four Italian security guards abducted [in Iraq] earlier this week, was shot dead on Wednesday after Italy refused to bow to the kidnappers' demands that it withdraw its troops from Iraq. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said a video recording of the killing showed that Quattrocchi was hooded when his kidnappers put a gun to his head. "When the murderers were pointing a pistol at him, this man tried to take off his hood and shouted: 'Now I'm going to show you how an Italian dies'. And they killed him," Frattini said. "He died a hero," he added..."

Godspeed, Mr. Quattrocchi. Somewhere in the recesses of the Italian people lies the the spirit that once led Romans to dominate the world. We have seen it on display in front of savages yet again.

The only thing that I can say is that I hung my head and closed my eyes in regret---or some other ill-defined emotion---when I read this. I remain sorrowful that brave men and women have to give their lives against these bestial savages and their murderous theology. Good God, when will it end?

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Andrew Stuttaford.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

In a previous post, I complained about the 700:70 kill ratio reported by Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, USMC. It now appears that this number isn't the right ratio, and that our operations in Fallujah turned out better than I understood.

In reading The Happy Carpenter, I came across his recounting of a story run in the Moscow Times.

The Fallujah numbers, the ones I'm most interested in, are as follows: 600 al-Sadr forces killed; 1,000 wounded. United States KIA: 20.

Friends and neighbors, that's 30:1. That's fantastic. Good hunting, Marines! I am well pleased with these results, and I'm glad to see that our people are putting a grievous hurt on the al-Sadr forces. Of course, it would be a mistake copied from the 1960s and the example of Robert S. McNamara to focus solely upon the numbers game. However, when one needs a tidy box score to cheer about, such numbers will do nicely.

At the same time, I regret the loss of our people in battle, and I regret (well, sorta) the fact that the new Iraq requires the wasted lives of many young Iraqis who cling to an impossible and malignant ideal. There must be no Islamic Republic of Iraq, and we must ensure that no such polity comes about.

Forward for victory.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Dodd Harris has this story, covering the death of what has to be the last Crimean War veteran.

Read his entry, and then read this for the full story. Call me a soft-hearted guy, but it's hard not to smile charitably at the tag attached to this particular veteran, or when you read about his conduct during World War II.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 06:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

In an earlier post, I had grumped about the apparent kill ratio resulting from the operations against Moqtada al-Sadr's forces in the suburbs (?) of Baghdad. As the fighting went on, I lost count of what the number was, and so therefore it's time for an update.

This information comes courtesy of the California Yankee, by way of the Associated Press:

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Monday that U.S. troops killed about 700 insurgents across Iraq since the beginning of the month. Around 70 coalition troops - almost all Americans - were also killed.

Rounding the numbers, that's 700 of theirs for 70 of ours, i.e. 10:1. That's not bad. I don't have comparable figures---if even they can be compared---for other American operations throughout history, but I can live with 10:1. I wish we could move that to 20:1 or higher. Would that the number was 700:0, but alas, we'll probably not be that lucky. Similarly, I can't help but wish that we didn't have to do this. I'd rather the considerable efforts in planning and execution---on both sides---could be directed towards building an American-friendly prosperous and free Iraq, but it does not appear that circumstances would allow that. Pity.

A certain simple lesson can be drawn from the number, though: "Don't fight Americans unless you can sustain hideous casualties, for they shall inflict them." I've read somewhere---thought it was Mark Bowden in the WSJ, but that's not it---that after engagement which claimed the life of, among others, Randall Shugart, the Somalis were in a funk due to the demoralizing effect of losing lots of their people in exchange for a handful of our people. One wonders if this same effect translates to al-Sadr's militia, and if so, what our leadership will do about it.

As a Jacksonian, I suggest giving them an opportunity to give up their weapons and go home. Anyone who doesn't do so can keep fighting and be annihilated. I am distinctly tired of this al-Sadr and his private army, and I am suspicious of any attempt to deal with him that doesn't involve a laser-guided bomb.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to California Yankee.

UPDATE: I had to cut out the Mark Bowden reference, because it wasn't exactly what I thought he had said, and the actual statement did not support the premise I was fronting. Enh, this journalistic integrity thing, it is hard.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

You've got to love the Soviet Union's Voyska PVO. If it moves, they'll shoot at it. It seems that flying the Russian skies was equally unfriendly, whether it be American reconnaisance aircraft (Hey, Open Skies means you, Ivan!) or alien invaders from beyond space. This just in from The American Kestrel:

Soviet military encountered many UFOs, maybe for this reason in the end of the 60s a secret laboratory of researching "flying objects" was created in the USSR.

UFO researchers often blame the military of hiding the cases of alien rockets and disseminating false information of UFO. Army officers are not interested in the disputes about alien civilizations, they are interested in knowing what impact UFO can impose to military equipment and personnel.

1947. Antiaircraft guns of Transcaucasian Military District fired on the flying cigar-shaped object which came from the side of the Turkish border. The object"s flying altitude was below 4,000 meters, and the guns were capable of reaching a target at the altitudes up to 12,000 meters, but that time the fire made no harm to the "cigar". Then the cigar increased its speed and flew away over the mountains.

The English is bad because the Kestrel quotes from the English-language Pravda article of 23 January 2004. I am, nevertheless, highly amused. Holy shades of Delta Green, Batman! Heh heh heh. The article goes on to describe several other instances where the Soviet air defenses challenged seemingly invulnerable things, and ultimately failed to intercept them. Also included is some questionable story of a recovered unidentified craft that later vanished from a hangar. A word of analysis: I doubt it went back to Tatooine. More likely that it wound up in a scrap yard so the local KGB officers could have more money for vodka. Ahem.

And no, I'm not going to start covering UFOs and all that extra-terrestrial stuff, unless you think that me writing about movies or TV programs falls within that gap. I'll leave that sort of thing to Chris Carter and the Cigarette-Smoking Man.

Tip of the Eldridge hat to Donald Sensing. Snicker snicker.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.