Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Ebb and Flow

Tim Klimowicz has an excellent animated map of coalition casualties from March 20, 2003 to the present. (Hat tip: JBG) View the map by following this link and pressing the big red button to start the presentation. It plays out casualties summarized at the rate of one frame per day. The chosen method does not differentiate between casualties incurred while attacking the insurgents and those suffered while being attacked. Despite this, Mr. Klimowicz's animated map produces useful information about the distribution of casualties over time. You can actually see the pattern of engagements move on the map.

Imagine a large "X" leaning slightly to its left, with Baghdad at the intersection of the arms of the "X". This corresponds to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers which, rising from the northwest and north, momentarily converge on Baghdad before diverging again (only to region in the south and flow into the Persian Gulf). The upper arms of the "X" represent the main theater of the war. It is at once evident that the main action in centered around Baghdad, the Ramadi-Fallujah area, Qusabayah, Mosul and the area immediately south of Baghdad. An indication of the number of casualties in a single incident is given by the depth of red with which the blip is represented. If you have a sound card, it is matched by a tic sounded per casualty. Readers should watch the presentation for themselves.

The reader may be interested in overlaying an ethnic and religious map of Iraq over Klimowicz's presentation. It will be immediately evident why the fighting in Iraq is sometimes referred to as the 'Sunni insurgency'. Kurdistan and the purely Shi'ite areas are largely free of incident. Viewed over time, the action is flowing in a north and northwestern direction. Until about mid-2004 (look to the calendar display on the upper right corner) most of the fighting was in the environs of Baghdad and the towns immediately to the north, west and south. After that, more fighting could be observed in the upper reaches of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The exception is Mosul, which has been in steady combat almost from the beginning. It is important to the Sunni insurgents because:

The Mosul area sits astride a crossroads of commercial and oil transit routes, dominating the main trucking road from Turkey to Baghdad as well as some 500 miles of oil pipelines linking Iraq's northern oilfields to the export hub at Ceyhan, Turkey. ... Mosul and Nineveh province are of exceptional strategic importance in the struggle for Iraq, given their location along key transportation lines (for oil and for support flowing from Syria to Iraqi insurgent groups) and their status as rich recruiting ground for the Sunni resistance.

In retrospect, the US posture in Iraq appeared predominantly defensive until about mid-2004 but the Sunni insurgency was on the attack a full half year before. The Sunni insurgency's rear areas were in the upper Euphrates and Tigris and along the Syrian border from whence they more or less securely struck at Baghdad and its environs. These rear areas were not struck in force until after the Second Fallujah. The picture has changed somewhat, with many of the engagements now in the Sunni rear but they have not, so far, throttled down the tempo in either Mosul or Baghdad areas.

(Speculation alert) What can we deduce of the goals of the Sunni insurgency from this pattern of operations? That its probable aim to deny the new government legitimacy over a new unitary nation and to create doubt over the security of the oil resource. Consequently its strategic targets are going to be high profile political targets (such as Arab ambassadors) doing anything that would lessen recognition on the new government. It will aim to keep ethnically divided Mosul in a state of turmoil. If so, the real goal of the insurgency isn't restoring the status quo ante: the resubjugation of the Shi'ites and Kurds is now beyond their power; but a more attainable goal would be to salvage a rump as an independent Sunni area (or state) with a conceded share in the oil revenues. The idea would be to persuade the Shi'ites and Kurds to buy them off in exchange for security.

The political goals of the Sunni insurgency may be complicated by its association with the absolutist Al Qaeda, which aims to drive the accursed American away from the Land Between the Rivers. Simply put: the Sunni nationalists may want to make a deal for a Sunni homeland, but the Al Qaeda will not. Unfortunately, the more ferocious the Sunni attacks on the Shi'ites and Kurds, the less likely they are to agree on the expulsion of their guarantor. The Shi'ites and Kurds will remember the real lesson from Vietnam: how easily Washington abandons its allies after ground troops have been withdrawn. The American antiwar Left drew a peculiar and narrow lesson from Southeast Asia. For the rest of the world the moral of Vietnam is that if you are going to fight a war with American help it is essential to keep them engaged until victory or your entire constituency will wind up refugees.

For this reason, the creation of a new Iraqi constitution and government is of paramount importance to the US. The longer it stays in power, the more likely it is going to become a permanent fixture. By another irony which guerilla strategists may appreciate, it is America that wins in Iraq for so long as it is isn't defeated. But Tim Klimowicz's animated map shows why America won't be defeated. The tide of battle has moved into the depth of the Sunni area.

47 Comments:

Blogger Brian H said...

You didn't mention that each nation's casualties can be shown in any combination. Very interesting patterns. Also, the west, near Syria, has obviously heated up a lot recently.

7/06/2005 09:51:00 PM  
Blogger Pierre Legrand said...

The war will in my very humble and amateur opinion hinge on the willingness by Washington to shut down the supply routes from Syria and Iran. As uncomfortable as it may be to mention this there is a slight parallel to Vietnam right now. In Vietnam we were unwilling/unable to face shutting down the supply at the source in N. Vietnam. As soon as we started hitting those targets and acting like we meant it the Vietnamese came to the peace talks.

At the point that we decide to stop the flow of arms and terrorists from neighboring countries will be the day we actually start seeing the end of this battle.

The countries around Iraq and elsewhere are losing their fear the US and thats not a good thing. We are wasting a tremendous gain that we recieved by being audacious enough to attack Iraq.

President Bush needs to stop worrying about others and simply win the damn war.

Pierre

7/06/2005 09:59:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

OT, and I hate to go OT on the 1st or 2nd post, but I watched the BRAC hearings today and witness after witness came up and testified that it appeared the Pentagons numbers for Base closures appear to be forced to reach a pre-determined outcome, ignore threat studies, and appear "intellectually dishonest".

This seems to be shaping up as another colossal Rumsfeld blunder. He appears to be destroying the strategic military and ignoring conventional military threats to divert funds to Iraq and "special ops heroes". This looks as bad or worse than the post war "we don't need plans for Iraq...the liberated Iraqis will be back at work Monday gratefully signing contracts with America firms with their vast oil wealth".

China has a larger sub force than America as of 2001. Last year they launched 9 and bought 8 advanced Kilos from Russia. They have 5 nuke attack subs and 2 Trident-like Fleet Ballistic Missile subs under construction. Their existing subs are being upgraded & fitted with aircraft carrier-killing Sunburn missiles. Their military has called America the "hegemon enemy". Their Navy has said that the naval component of WWI was fought by battleships, WWII by aircraft carriers, and a future naval conflict, if it comes, will be fought and won not by aviation -by the side with the most, and the best subs.

The America response is to build 4 subs since Bush took office and prematurely retire 8 for "money savings". We are building one sub a year, and Pentagon civilian directed studies termed "dishonest reversed engineered studies directed to make defense needs fit a preordained, pre-Iraq budget" say we "only need" 37 maybe even 30 attack subs.

The base closures BRAC hit sub construction, innovation centers, and repair and overhaul facilities hard. America's largest attack sub base and center of all sub technology - New London - to be closed and assets spread over several Southern bases. Putting the Naval Underwater Systems Command Center and Electric Boat, the premier sub builder - 400 miles away from the nearest moored Sub. (New London subs are actually closer to Asian threats than all West Coast subs but those at Pearl Harbor, and New London is the closest to the Atlantic shipping lanes, Russian Fleet, the Mideast).

And the numbers appear to be dishonest. Cost savings are dubious for several facilities. Closures appear to target certain regions of the country.

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the most efficient, lowest cost shipyard for subs is slated for closure. Brunswick, the last active duty air base in New England, the base that provides recon patrols for air and shipping coming from Islamic countries from Maine or forward deployed in Qatar, is supposed to be closed and assets transferred to sunny Jacksonville, FL.

Along with base closures reflecting the loss of F15/16 fighters, surface ships, AF refueling tankers, A-10s, M-1 tanks inventory lost since Bush went uptempo post 9/11 with no replacement weapons replacing the losses.

Again, sorry to go OT, but IMO, Iraq and all the skirmishes involved there is a sideshow to a much scarier military threat. China's rise and the tunnel vision of Rumsfelds people determined to allow any military capability not associated with fighting "the few evildoers who hijacked the Religion of Peace".

The big show is China, and America's Navy, AF, and logistics capability in decline with lost assets not being replaced and further cuts coming.

7/06/2005 10:21:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"The American antiwar Left drew a peculiar and narrow lesson from Southeast Asia. "
---
To put it mildly.
Also might say inverted.
Like just about all their positions today are in direct opposition to reality.

7/06/2005 10:30:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

C-4,
Disarming between wars is traditional, so at least we'll be following tradition.

7/06/2005 10:30:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"The countries around Iraq and elsewhere are losing their fear the US and thats not a good thing."
Shades of Clinton years after Desert Storm, if true.

7/06/2005 10:33:00 PM  
Blogger sugar said...

Victory over an insurgency is to reduce them to a nuisance. It is ridiculous to think you can defeat them to the last man. Rumsfeld's statement that insurgencys last 10 years is false. They can go at least 30 years. Regardless of political or military solution someone will still be pissed. If you appease the main group there will be splinters. Also many of these are also criminal elements. You'll see the rise of kidnappings for ransom, armed lootings and so on. Many insurgencies are criminal outfits but pretend they are under a cause. But many countries do move forward despite having rebels in the mist. When you reduce them to a nuisance, the populace just ignores them.


The problem is we are fighting the rebels with a large conventional force using conventional tactics. Thats great when we first went in. But we never really transitioned to guerilla warfare while the Iraqis did. We didnt adapt. That warfare in Iraq is really for special forces. Special forces are covert, invisible and deadly - just like the insurgency.

Instead we have a huge sitting duck conventional army that makes for a large bullseye. And boy do they love to hit that target in front of the cameras.

7/06/2005 10:42:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Wretchard,
Do you think that 20,000 insurgents estimate of McCaffrey's I posted a few days ago is meaningful?
---
Pierre,
Seems perhaps one difference is that in Vietnam, massive amounts of supplies had to be brought in.
In Iraq, it seems like most of the weapons are still preplaced courtesy of Saddam.

7/06/2005 10:44:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Do the Sunni's control Al-Queda, does Al-Queda control the Sunni's, or are they two different entities by now? And what about Iran/Syria?

I have to think that Al-Queda is in the process of breaking off from whatever partnership they had with the Sunni's, and will be going it alone. I'm assuming continued funding by the Saudi's and by Iran in this effort.

They've been run out of Saudi Arabia and don't really have any place else to take their holy war to if they leave Iraq. Syria's not even being totally hospitable any more. But given that they're still receiving funding and are, of course, still crazy, they'll keep fighting in Iraq until every one of them is dead or locked up.

I like Wretchard's analysis of the Sunni's looking for a deal, but like everything else they've attempted they have a totally tin ear when it comes to accomplishing it. It seems likely to me, however, that the upshot will be for the Sunni's who have been fighting and shooting to throw it in and at least try just to go back to normal smuggling and petty theft like in the good old days.

Which will leave Al-Queda's fighters sticking out like sore thumbs with *all* the Iraqi's mad at them, in addition to the Egyptians, Bahrainians and other Arabs whose ambassadors they've been attacking. I wonder if we could tempt a few of those very many minutely-educated Islamic scholars to issue an anti-Al Queda fatwa or two ... something about IED's being "haram". and sinful.

7/06/2005 10:48:00 PM  
Blogger Fresh Air said...

Cedarford--

Do you honestly believe we're going to go to war with China? Doesn't the phrase "mutually assured destruction" mean anything to you?

The Commies may be nuts, but they aren't crazy.

7/06/2005 10:57:00 PM  
Blogger downtowndubai said...

bloomie:

f.y.i. the terror war in algeria was real as all hell.

blood on the streets and roads nearly every day.

took "ten years" to quell the terror situation. took ten years to get arabs to buy into a "fear free" future with the existing governmental structure and not an 'islamic republic lite' senario-supported by the french political savants.

30 years of terror tactics in iraq is a bit over the top.

greeting from downtown dubai!!!!!!!!!

7/06/2005 11:20:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Work that remains on the constitution:

Most subcommittees have finished 50 to 70 percent of their work, but all of it is up for debate, al-Hamoodi said.

Thorny issues remain: the extent of federalism, a plan to divide the country into geographic regions and the role of Islam. Proposals to return Kurds to Kirkuk -- after they were expelled from the city under Saddam Hussein's campaign of Arabization -- also are contentious. Turkmens and Arabs now complain that they're being driven from their homes in the city.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050706/NEWS06/507060452/1012/NEWS06

7/06/2005 11:35:00 PM  
Blogger Abakan said...

The most frustrating aspect about reading essays on Iraq in this forum is that the majority of participants seem to believe that 'victory' is in some way tied to complete and total destruction of all insurgent forces, and jihadists in Iraq.
At the risk of offending many of the regulars, I think this focus lends credibility to those critics who claim the Iraq war represents a Christian crusade against Islam.
The objective of this war has always been clear.

We destroyed Sadams Baathist regime because it was a state sponsor of Islamic Fascism, and jihadist terrorists, and had violated the cease fire agreement, and was in violation of UN sanctions requiring the destruction of WMD's.

This has from the begining been an effort to establish a stable government neutral towards or allied with the United States. We await the successful ratification of a Constitution by a democratically elected government.

Car bombs, assinations, kidnappings, suicide/homicide bombings might be a reality within Iraq for the next 50 years. Assumming that there can ever be an end to that sort of endeavor.

However, a stable functioning representative government in Iraq not hostile to the west or the United States will be a substansial 'victory' in our war on terror.

When I say our 'War on Terror', I mean only the direction of energy towards the containment of state sponsored terrorism against the US and our allies.

It is all about relationships between nation/states. It isn't a crusade against radical Islam or a war against Osama or Al Queda.

It is amazing to me how often the messages of the self described 'right' intersects with the self described 'left' creating noise that serves to confuse everyone.

7/06/2005 11:40:00 PM  
Blogger sugar said...

downtowndubai:

The tempo will slow down. As I've said, hopefully to a nuisance. But there will still be violence there in 30 years. Maybe 1 carbomb in a year. A governor or mayor assasinated here and there. It will be there. When one of those dead Iraqi cop's kid grows up, he will ask questions. Just ask the Chinese if they'd like to nuke the Japanese for something that happened some 50 years ago.

It will be there.

7/06/2005 11:42:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

fresh air - A thermonuclear war is the last thing China wants. It has more subs than us today, and at current rates of Fleet sizing will have twice as many subs by 2015, 3 times as many by 2025. And a larger AF. China decides to invade Taiwan, what are we going to do if they sink 2-3 aircraft carriers? Nuke them? Stop buying goods, then say we will stop embargoing ChinaMart if they will only stop dumping dollars and wiping out America's life savings?? What will we do if they destroy the dollar? Nuke them? If they buy up all the private oil companies? Nuke them??

3 more months 'till Russia and China begin joint military maneuvers under Commonwealth 2005.

Sorry, Wretchard, but after getting into helping with BRAC numbers for my State and realizing how badly Bush & Rumsfeld are running down the military capability...I don't have much of a concern about Iraq anymore other than it being a bottomless money pit that is challenging long term volunteer military viability.

Sadly, seeing the intellectual dishonesty of what Rumsfeld and his Pentagon civvies are trying to do with this BRAC - I've lost all confidence in the Bush team as a wise steward of the military and preserving American power from hostile challenge.

7/07/2005 12:19:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Nahncee said,
"Which will leave Al-Queda's fighters sticking out like sore thumbs with *all* the Iraqi's mad at them, in addition to the Egyptians, Bahrainians and other Arabs whose ambassadors they've been attacking. "
---
Seems like a not insignificant benefit to the war in Iraq, to me, at least if not everyone.
And of course none on the left, since the war in Afghanistan was over years ago, and the war in Iraq was just Bushitler's Halliburton/Neocon inspired/conspired
War For Oil.

7/07/2005 12:26:00 AM  
Blogger husker_met said...

I agree with W's idea that the political onus is on the Iraqis to hammer out a government and get up to speed.

In my mind, our job is to push them until that happens, then support them until they can reduce the terror level to bloomie's "nuisance" status.

There's always the malcontents and outlyers. Even Europe had the occasional Red-terror blow up through the seventies and eighties.

Hell, we're the model here and we still managed to come up with a McVeigh and a Unibomber.

The Admin has never successfully made the case, nor the transition, into counter-insurgency mode. We need to quit making the case that the insurgency is some sort of amalgam, and flat call it terrorist infiltration. Bang that home at every briefing and press conference every day for as long as it takes. That would also tend to focus (I think) American public opinion towards "Iraq as a front in the WoT".

The vibe I got from the map, from both locations and timeline, is that whatever Sunni element there is to the insurgency is being driven by the A-Q elements (population centers and ethnically diverse areas with lots of Shiites and Kurds). A-Q is basically using the political instability (and using the Sunnis) for their own ends. Not to be a master of the obvious but, if we stop the A-Qs from coming in the Sunnis will be more apt to cut the best deal they can make, which is becoming a more and more realistic alternative to everyone but the hardcore. Again, all part of the same message.

It's about time we called a spade a spade on this and pointed out, by name, the countries of origin the baddies are hailing from. In other words, put the PR heat on Iran, Syria, and Saudi to start cleaning house.

GWB has demonstrated he has the will. Let's let the offending countries worry about whether they're giving him the reason. At the same time, the Admin needs to help Americans (and anyone else who will listen) make the connection that the real problems in Iraq are coming from outside.

7/07/2005 12:27:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Anybody here able to offer a rebuttal to a specific in C-4's list of grievances, namely the lack of an A-10 replacement?
What's supposed to fill that role?

7/07/2005 12:37:00 AM  
Blogger husker_met said...

I'm dubious about cedarford's whole Chinese threat in general because we owe them a lot of money (Chinese DFI and bond purchases). Getting into a nuclear confrontation with us (or conventional confrontation for that matter) sort of makes collection problematic.

Internal Chinese debt is all really high risk so the smart thing, to me, is to make sure your low risk debtors are alive to pay.

I think the more likely kind of confrontation is putting an economic squeeze on our WalMart lifestyle and cutting back U.S. entry into the Chinese market.

Think trade war not shooting war. We still have to pay down our debt, but in the meantime we have to pay more for Chinese manufactured goods.

Throw oil into the mix and we've really exposed our national crotch to a swift Chinese kick.

As for the A-10...

I could be wrong, but I thought the A-10 was primarily an infantry support aircraft. Isn't the military redesign moving that role over to helos?

7/07/2005 01:04:00 AM  
Blogger Abakan said...

Progress so far in the War on Terror. Count down to Victory in Iraq.

Work that remains on the constitution:

Most subcommittees have finished 50 to 70 percent of their work, but all of it is up for debate, al-Hamoodi said.

Thorny issues remain: the extent of federalism, a plan to divide the country into geographic regions and the role of Islam. Proposals to return Kurds to Kirkuk -- after they were expelled from the city under Saddam Hussein's campaign of Arabization -- also are contentious. Turkmens and Arabs now complain that they're being driven from their homes in the city.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050706/NEWS06/507060452/1012/NEWS06

This is our strategic goal and the only meaningful measure for success in Iraq and the War on Terrorism.

7/07/2005 01:30:00 AM  
Blogger miklos rosza said...

Corsican separatists (so-called) still set off a bomb now and then although they have zero popular support and everyone knows they're mafia (just like, hmm, the IRA?)

7/07/2005 01:44:00 AM  
Blogger ledger said...

Are these "Battle Causalities" or "over all Causalities" including accidents and the like?

7/07/2005 01:49:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Husker,
After I wrote that, I was thinking about the Osprey, but for me the relatively small cost of a replacement would be justified as they are not the same platform.
(and the osprey has yet to prove itself.)

7/07/2005 02:03:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

PresbyPoet said...
Minimum number of carriers is 11, the Enterprise stays until its replacement is launched. See Navy site here.
Presby posted this two threads back.
. Navy Data

7/07/2005 02:22:00 AM  
Blogger Abakan said...

Husker_met said,

"I'm dubious about cedarford's whole Chinese threat in general because we owe them a lot of money (Chinese DFI and bond purchases). Getting into a nuclear confrontation with us (or conventional confrontation for that matter) sort of makes collection problematic."

I find Cedarfords interjection of China into every discussion about Iraq almost comical. It's is a bit like sitting comfortably in the bleachers and waving a red flag hoping to catch the attention of the matador so he will be distracted and be gored by the bull.

China is a super power, and is an important political consideration, and will be an important consideration for my children, and my children's children.

However, we can have a thoughtful discussion about Iraq without mentioning China at all.

7/07/2005 02:50:00 AM  
Blogger The Wobbly Guy said...

Breaking news, guys. London just got hammered by terrorists.

Several explosions in the underground network and on the buses.

Stay tuned. Looks like phase two of the islamio-fundies' plan is in play: discourage all allies of the US from the present conflict.

It was only a matter of time. Hope the British will wake up and not roll over like the Spanish.

However, they might just capitulate because of the successful Olympic bid.

Coincidence? Definitely not.

7/07/2005 03:01:00 AM  
Blogger Kevin said...

OT

There’s been a major terrorist attack in London this morning. I was on the lift going down into the Russell Square tube station when first the electricity was cut and a few seconds later a massive explosion was felt. After a few minutes they got our lift back up to the surface and I got out of the station. The people who had been on the platform started streaming out of the station too – they had climbed the 175-step stairs. They described an explosion further down the line, it turns out that it was at the very, very crowded King’s Cross station. The shaken and injured who were able to climb the stairs started emerging from the stairs five minutes later. The emergency services arrived and I started walking to my office near Broadgate. Luckily I took a different route than I normally do if I walk because on that way a double-decker bus exploded, full of passengers. One lady in our office witnessed it.

The BBC is talking of ‘power surges’ causing all of this. That’s total bullshit. It looks like at least three tube stations were hit, Aldgate, King’s Cross and Liverpool Street Station. To be clear, the last two are also major train stations. Threee busses were blown up. That’s some power surge. When I got to my office most people were completely clueless as to what happened but now an announcement has been made that people can either leave or stay, it’s up to them.

I am supposed to return to Brussels tonight but that is looking unlikely to happen.

7/07/2005 03:06:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

Glad you're OK, Kevin. I've a son in London, he's ok too.

So what do we do? 1000 bomber raid over Mecca

ADE

7/07/2005 03:21:00 AM  
Blogger James Kielland said...

Kevin,

Thank you for taking the time to share this with us. Please be sure to keep us updated.

7/07/2005 03:24:00 AM  
Blogger The Wobbly Guy said...

Glad you're safe, Kevin. This looks really bad, and suggests very strongly that the islamists have rebuilt their networks and have more assets than what they're commiting to Iraq.

I also see it as an extension of their new strategy after the US failed to roll over and die; isolate the US from its allies. That's probably the only reason why it was Madrid and London that was hit after 9/11, and not a US target.

Stay tuned.

7/07/2005 03:43:00 AM  
Blogger Kevin said...

I’m realizing that the power surge talk is just a way to keep people calm as they evacuate the tube system. I just talked to the lady who witnessed the bus explosion. She had been in the tube at Euston station when they started clearing the people out of the system. It took her 40 minutes to get off the platform and on to the surface streets – it was that crowded. No one panicked she said. She walked towards King’s Cross but was diverted towards Russell Square. She started chatting with a woman and they decided to jump on a 205 bus. The bus did not move at all for the five minutes she was on it. The bus behind her exploded, she saw it in the air. Her ears were ringing; she said people were amazingly calm but that she started to panic a bit and ran off the bus and started running towards our office.

She was saved by a completely random choice of which bus to jump on. I was meant to go to King's Cross and then to transfer to the Northern line. Since I missed the explosion by five minutes that means I was saved by some ladies lagging while checking out of my hotel this morning (and my taking th escenic route instead of the direct one).

Right now we are staying in the office. Supposedly Old Street Station which is near was also hit us but there are not that many emergency vehicles there so I doubt that it’s true. The waves of the blasts travel through the tunnels and it makes it hard to know where the actual blast was. There are certainly more than the usual sounds of sirens but it is hard from here to get a real picture of what is going on. I think I will walk over to Liverpool Street Station to check it out.

They are currently going through the office to see if anyone is missing.

7/07/2005 03:52:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

Yeo
Not to forget Aussie, which was hit in the surrogate Bali. But when you are where we are, you know the stakes, so you don't roll over like Spain.

ADE

PS My son was in the police building that coordinates response to attacks on London. A message went over the PA telling everybody who was not essential to get out. He wasn't sure what to do, stay in the most protected building, or get out of the most likely target. In the end, thank God, it didn't matter.

7/07/2005 03:58:00 AM  
Blogger Brian S said...

Thanks for the update Kevin. Obviously London has suffered a major terrorist attack; Tony Blair has just confirmed it.

7/07/2005 04:07:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

Seven explosions. Some deaths confirmed.

Some ??? Jihad site claims responsibility.

ADE

7/07/2005 04:18:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

BBC: almost certainly work of Al Quaeda

7/07/2005 04:21:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hey, Kevin,
Wretch has a new thread for you.

7/07/2005 04:26:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

Thanks Doug.

ADE

7/07/2005 04:32:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

abakan,
You're too smart for that.
Consider deleting your post.
Ask anyone else here and they'll tell you they much prefer it to when he starts regularly posting on Israel or our bending over and taking it for them.

7/07/2005 04:38:00 AM  
Blogger exhelodrvr said...

The A-10 is not a very survivable aircraft in an environment where we do not have air superiority, so while it is great at what it does, it is also fairly limited. I believe that the replacement is just better guidance systems for the weaponry carried by the F-16s/15s/18s, as well as improved attack helicopters.

7/07/2005 06:43:00 AM  
Blogger Cosmo said...

Abakan:

China may or may not BECOME a superpower, and is most certainly an incipient threat, along the lines of 1930's Japan, Italy or Germany.

But any nation which still receives foreign aid, assumes no serious international responsibilities and sells its orphans for cash to foreigners -- yet somehow finds money for space shots, nukes and Olympic gold medal programs -- is not, at present, a superpower.

7/07/2005 08:18:00 AM  
Blogger Westhawk said...

Wretchard, a fascinating display. Thanks for sharing it. And I agree with Bloomie that it is well past time for the Coalition to transition to a traditional Special Forces operation in Iraq, that is, training, equiping and advising indigenous forces. Fortunately, that effort is well underway.

Dear readers, we would like to introduce you to Westhawk, a new blog covering national security and diplomacy.

http://www.westhawk.blogspot.com

Recent posts discuss:

· The London subway bombings and what they mean for U.S. border security and U.S. domestic politics,
· The CIA claims that the U.S. is effectively running a training camp for jihadists in Iraq. Is this true?
· A discussion of the insurgents’ war plan in Iraq,
· Which side is closer to winning in Iraq, and what Coalition tactic really matters,
· Why the U.S. Army is going out of business,
· What post-war Iraq will likely look like and what it means for U.S. geo-political strategy,
· What the U.S. should do about North Korea and what it means for the future of nuclear weapons proliferation.

We hope you find westhawk.blogspot.com useful. We look forward to reading your comments and feedback.

http://www.westhawk.blogspot.com

7/07/2005 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger ZivB said...

First, my condolences to all of those affected, both the victims and their families, by the blasts in London, it really does focus the mind on what needs to be done. It is just appalling what terrorists will stoop to. On a less topical subject, regarding the A10, the air force has announced that they are upgrading existing A10s by improving the engines and giving the Warthog improved payload and altitude, the new'ish HOTAS system, 2 new color MFD, and digital sources management. Sorry about the link below, I don't think it is live but it does have a nice article on the new A10-C.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Warthog,,00.html

7/07/2005 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

zivb,
Thanks!

7/07/2005 07:15:00 PM  
Blogger Red A said...

In the 90's, if we had decided to intervene in Yugolavia with a defined mission to preserve that nation, I think we'd be seeing fighting in Serbia just as we see it in the Sunni triangle.

Perhaps splitting Iraq would have been a smarter move than we think.

Also, keep in mind that an Iraqi civil war could easily have occurred when Saddam died and followed an even worse result for the Iraqi people.

7/07/2005 07:48:00 PM  
Blogger paulpsy said...

Doug @ 4:38;
Yeah; at least C4 admitted that he used to have confidence in "the Bush team".

7/07/2005 09:03:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

If I got paid for predicting that one, I'd be a rich man!
London provided all the "reason" he needed to get full on back on the Israel "theme," for lack of a better word!
Wonder if there's any proof to the effect that he once did indeed support "The Bush Team?"

7/08/2005 04:23:00 AM  
Blogger GunJam said...

Cedarford,

You are SOOOOO RIGHT ON in your post about the last BRAC's list being a testament to Rumsfeld's failure to properly grasp -- let alone -- assess or properly respond to current geostrategic realities!

I am disgusted by Rumsfeld's truly "bulemic" recommendations for base closures -- but I am even more disgusted with the supposed "conservatives" for their apparent insouciance vis-a-vis these recommendations.

Where are the protests in the House of Representatives? Where are the tirades in the Senate?

Everyone appears to be sleep-walking: Base closures? What base closures? Chinese subs? What Chinese subs?

Keep on posting along these lines!

God bless the USA!

gunjam

7/10/2005 06:29:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger