I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I cant find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:
*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at The Weather Channel probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.
*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you dont like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.
#1
As a firm believer in the principle that one should check the source and ignore the hype, I checked out Cullen's original blog posting. She wrote, in part:
In an interesting follow-up blog on the reason for this all too common global warming contrarianism within the broadcast meteorology community, journalist Andrew Freedman suggests local TV meteorologist may want to look to the American Meteorological Society for guidance. Freedman goes on to point out that the AMS has in fact, issued a statement on climate change that reads:
"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."
I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)
Up to this point she's not really saying anything controversial; her basic point is that you should find out about global warming before you say something about it. Here's where she starts getting into trouble:
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.
Even up to this point she could argue that she isn't calling for a suppression of dissent, but merely saying that you should be knowledgeable before you call yourself a meteorologist, or else the AMS should stop letting you use their seal of approval. If she had stopped here she could have been accused of little more than rudeness. This part is the controversial bit:
Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.
Ooops. That statement was a mistake on her part. She's basically saying that it's not true that cyclical weather patterns contribute to global warming; she's further saying that the AMS said so too. But of course, they didn't; they actually said
"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."
There is nothing in that statement that precludes cyclical weather patterns as a contributor to global warming. Cullen's problem is that she wanted an authoritative source to buttress her prejudices; when the AMS failed to oblige, she just pretended that they said what she wanted them to say. Now she has posted the obligatory non-apology in the form of a softball interview with somebody or other. It won't help. I used to watch the Weather Channel religiously; from now on I'll get my weather information from Accuweather.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
01/19/2007 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"A major agent" is NOT "a SOLE AGENT", and science itself has already proven that man-made activities is miniscule = minutae, even irrelevant, when compared to the effects of SOLAR and other natural forces-dynamics. Even iff humanity could de facto control global weather and climate change, we have 999, 999-plus earth sized planets to conquer before the NUREMBURG ENVIRO CRIMES TRIALS? CAN ORDER THE SUN TO SURRENDER, lest Earth Sheriffs hunt down and shoot the rebellious arrogant Sun down like a criminal dog in a 100K-Milyuuhn years from now, maybe two. HEAR US, SOL, ACCEPT DEFEAT AND SURRENDER NOW OR WE'RE GONNA KILL YA IN A MILYUHN TEARS, D *** YOU, YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE LAW OR FROM EARTH!?
#3
A steady stream of books and articles continues to issue forth from his pen, and he travels the world on self-selected diplomatic missions.
That should read A steady stream of drivel continues to issue forth from his poison pen, and he travels the world on self-selected missions portraying himself as a world figure instead of as a failed President and virulent anti-Semite and anti-American.
#6
Ugh... Just read through it all. The man is a sort of political remora, attaching himself to whatever movement or person will take him the farthest, and in hopes of sucking up some of the leftovers.
For a long time I used to think he was just one of natures' total fools, too out of his depth to even know he was out of his depth. Now I wonder if his actions are indeed calculated.
Worst president and worst ex-president ever.
#9
It has been alleged that the Iranians so frustrated him during the hostage crisis that he secretly ordered the US Army to produce several tons of chemical weapon agent BZ (hallucinogen), intended to be dropped on Tehran during the hostage rescue effort.
The Pentagon, understanding the ramifications of using a chemical weapons attack against a civilian population center, may have been willing to sabotage their own mission than risk abrogating one of the greatest prohibitions of the 20th Century, just for the satisfaction of a blind-with-hatred president.
While the death of military personnel in Operation Eagle Claw was undoubtedly unintentional, it did provide an excellent excuse for the Pentagon to delay the subsequent follow-up rescue operations until Carter had left office.
#10
To quote Homer (Simpson): "Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster."
The episode also featured a statue of Jimmah with the inscription "Malaise Forever."
Spot on, I'd say.
Posted by: Tibor ||
01/19/2007 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It has been alleged that the Iranians so frustrated him during the hostage crisis that he secretly ordered the US Army to produce several tons of chemical weapon agent BZ (hallucinogen), intended to be dropped on Tehran during the hostage rescue effort.
You can look it up!
It was to be delivered Israeli Jericos painted to look like generic Irqai Scud Cees. The whole mess alleged became unraveled when certain things didn't work at a certain place, which caused certain people to become less certain.
#12
No Shipman, you cannot look it up. The info was taught at the US Army Chemical School at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. The military never liked the stuff because it was "unreliable" as an incapacitating agent. It kept only modest amounts until Carter wanted a lot. They only decided to finally get rid of Carter-era stores of it in 1988.
However, I say alleged, because no one I talked to at the school claimed any direct knowledge of the production program. So, no proof. I have no reason to doubt their stories, however.
Former vice president Walter Mondale on Friday criticized Vice President Dick Cheney's role in the White House, and said former president Jimmy Carter never would have tolerated Cheney's actions. "I think that Cheney has stepped way over the line," Mondale said.
Mondale, who was vice president under Carter, made the comments at a three-day conference about Carter's presidency that opened Friday at the University of Georgia. Mondale said Cheney and his assistants pressured federal agencies as they prepared information for President Bush.
"I think Cheney's been at the center of cooking up farcical estimates of national risks, weapons of mass destruction and the 9/11 connection to Iraq," he said.
Mondale said that does not serve the president, because he needs facts. "If I had done as vice president what this vice president has done, Carter would have thrown me out of there," Mondale said. "I don't think he could have tolerated a vice president over there pressuring and pushing other agencies, ordering up different reports than they wanted to send us. I don't think he would have stood for it."
Academics credit Carter with expanding the role of the vice presidency during his administration. As vice president, Mondale served as the president's senior adviser. He held an office in the West Wing of the White House, had private meetings with the president and spoke on behalf of the president before influential groups.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/19/2007 14:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Cheney Should Take Mondale Hunting
And Carter, and Hillary, and Kennedy etc...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/19/2007 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
A 3-day conference on a failed Presidency for a failed President who's also a bald-faced liar, anti-Semite, and anti-American.
Bunch of leftist moonbats looking for an excuse to get drunk and get laid (hookers & booze, remember) on the taxpayer dole most likely.
#3
"I think Cheney's been at the center of cooking up farcical estimates of national risks, weapons of mass destruction and the 9/11 connection to Iraq," he said.
A former vice-president calling the current vice-president a liar. Does he have any facts to back up this assertion or is it just the usual donk hyperbole? What a couple of bitter, old, losers.
#4
Hay FOTSgreg- don't drag reputable folks like hookers and fine products like booze into the same sentence as the moonbat community! Damn my friend they-hookers and wiskey makers- have standards and reputations you know!!!LOL!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/19/2007 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Mondale, who was vice president under Carter, made the comments at a three-day conference about Carter's presidency that opened Friday at the University of Georgia.
Wow. That's great, Wally. So, what have you been up to for the last thirty years?
Three days on the highlights of the Carter administration?
Does the price of admission include a gun for the participants so they can shoot themselves in the fuckin head?
Somewhere in Barack Obama's ancestry, I'm betting he was blessed by a connection to the late Stanley Kubrick. The only evidence is the fact that so young a politician has the intellect and sense of humor to apparently throw Team Clinton into a discombobulated near-panic a year before the Iowa caucuses. Obama isn't in this for fun or to torment Clinton. He's in it to credential himself to gain the presidential nomination - and possibly win - as a liberal candidate some time in the next four, eight, twelve or twenty years. Hillary Clinton isn't. She knows that 2008 is her one chance. If Obama - or Edwards or someone else - denies her the nomination, Clinton knows she'll be on the trail to Senatorial codgerdom, not the presidency. Because she's the leader and not the inevitable nominee the fallout from Obama's maneuvers has dropped on Clinton's shoulders.
On October 22, 2006 - a bit more than two weeks before the mid-term election - Obama used an appearance on Meet the Press to hint broadly at a presidential run. The timing was magnificent. Neither president nor senator, not war or the coming election, could steal the limelight from him that day. And then the post-election polls started. Obama - after a single trip to New Hampshire - polled within one point of Sen. Clinton. She polled behind both Obama and John Edwards in a December Iowa poll, and hasn't had a break since. . . .
Obama's announcement included the fact that he's planning a formal announcement of his presidential bid on February 10, giving Clinton only a few weeks to regain the momentum she thought she had and probably accelerating her plans to announce her candidacy. She's caught in her own quagmire, stuck with the foundational strategy that won her husband the presidency twice. She has to maintain the moderate pose while pushing a liberal agenda. She faces the growing pressure from Obama, Edwards and the Cindy Sheehan wing of her party that are shoving her uncomfortably leftward. Clinton knows that if she gives in, she loses the Clinton Cloak and will have to seek the presidency as just another one of a crowd of antiwar liberals. And she can't win that way, because - as the 2006 post-election polls showed - either party's nominee will depend on the truly moderate voters of both parties to grant the margin of victory. So what will Clinton do?
Hillary Clinton will do what she and her husband have always done. When they speak of the politics of personal destruction, they aren't really complaining of how they're being treated. Psychologists call this "projection." When they speak of it, the Clintons are talking about another fundamental element of their politics.
Barack Obama may not be immune to these attacks but Clinton -- concerned about his ascendance --may have already used her best ammunition. In a mini-memoir written a decade ago, Obama spoke of his use of illegal drugs. This long-forgotten story was reborn in a January 3 Washington Post piece that may have been another Clinton maneuver to cut into his momentum. What else is there? Team Clinton will make sure we find out. For Clinton, whatever there is won't be enough to make up for her sliding scale position on the war. The Democrats are so far gone on that issue that Clinton will have to toe the Jack Murtha-Nancy Pelosi line sooner or later. The longer she waits, the harder the antiwar faction will be on her. The only other weapon she can use is her pals in the 527 Media. Rumsfeld got off easy compared to how Sen. Obama may fare.
The cynics among us might believe that Hillary used the Associated Press like a rented mule in her "Rumsfeld refused to testify" play last summer. And they would also believe that the AP's gushing review of Terry McAuliffe's book - a Clinton puff piece - might also have been maneuvered by Hillary's AP pals. But even those who aren't cynical will understand the connection when the New York Times's troika - publisher Pinch Sulzberger, Managing Editor Jill Abramson and columnist Maureen Dowd - begin whittling away at Obama. If Hillary sounds the alarm, they will not be alone in challenging Obama. The urgency of her SOS will be measured two ways.
First, the articles and columns questioning Obama's qualifications will go from trickle to flood. (Obama's are no less than Clinton's and aren't encumbered by her reputation of being, as William Safire once put it, a "serial liar.") Second, the editorials and columns praising Clinton's "reasoned moderation" on the Iraq war will evolve leftward as her position does. The 527 Media will play remoras to Hillary's shark. Barack Obama isn't a big enough fish to defend himself from what's in store.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/19/2007 11:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Barack should hit the inner cities hard and get them on his wagon. Then, Clinton has to be careful to appear to support Obama or lose the one needed group for a donk win, dark skinned Americans.
#7
NEWSMAX? > DICK MORRIS > NONE of the current GOP POTUS contenders may win the Presidential nomination in 2008. *DEMS > still have GORE, KERRY, MADMAN DAN, NANCY + BABS BOXER, etc. out there, now add EDWARDS + espec BARACK.
#8
DICK MORRIS > IOW, [ANTI-US]OWG + Global SOcialism is winning. Arise, CORSICANT, Arise, except that LEFT > "CORSICANT" = RUSSIA-CHINA/ANTI-US ASIA = EURASIA???
Since Muslim Keith Ellison's election to Congress, there's been a lot of noise in the media about the growing clout of the 8 million-Muslim electorate. Eight million?
'There are 8 million Muslims in America now," boasted a spokeswoman for something called the Muslim Advancement Society. She appeared on CNN to talk about what a proud day it was for her and other Muslim-Americans to see a Muslim brother sworn into Congress for the first time.
It seems the size of the Muslim population in America jumps by an additional million every other year or so. Just a couple of years ago the consensus number bandied about in the media was 7 million. Before 9/11 it was 6 million.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
01/19/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's actually about two million. This is a classic lie.
#4
I'd heard another number that was heavily based on the number of Arabs in the US but of course included the Christian Arabs who fled Muslim intolerance to come here in the first place.
The Muslims also want desperately to claim they have more people in America than the Jews.
#6
1-to-3 ratio is common ratio used by several Fed State Agencies vv population demographics/
stratums, espec for INTERNAL, PRELIMINARY = START-UP PLANNING - however, it must be clarified that any final count is wholly subjective = not considered final. Its quantitative utility/usefulness is the eye of the Beholder/User of the tally data.
Until recently, US-Pak relations were hunky-dory. But a question mark has just cropped up. President Bushs democracy project in Iraq has crashed. Worse, his nation-building project in Afghanistan has stalled at the hands of resurgent Taliban. Consequently, his ratings have plunged and he desperately wants to show some good results. So he is rushing 22000 additional troops to Iraq and considering the same option for Afghanistan. But theres a difference. In Baghdad, he has only himself to blame for his woes while in Afghanistan he is inclined to blame Islamabad because the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists are operating from borderland sanctuaries in Pakistan.
The Taliban problem in Afghanistan has resurfaced in 2006 with a bang. In 2003-04, the Americans prodded General Pervez Musharraf to use the Pakistan army to crush them in Waziristan. But the armys high losses, followed by a popular backlash, forced it to opt for dubious peace deals to maintain the status quo in 2006. But when the Taliban launched a wave of ferocious attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan, Washingtons patience ran out. Shorn of additional NATO troops and expecting a renewed Taliban offensive later this year, President Bush wants General Musharraf to do more to clamp down while he sends more troops to defend Kabul. A hearts and minds project is also underway simultaneously there is more US money for rehabilitation and development schemes in Waziristan and reconstruction in Afghanistan.
Until now the US has nudged the international media to accuse Pakistan of hosting the Taliban. It has also played good cop in Islamabad who praises General Musharraf and bad cop in Kabul who clucks sympathetically with President Hamid Karzai when he blasts Pakistan. But that soft approach may be changing. Recent statements by top US officials and generals claiming that Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders are holed out in sanctuaries inside Pakistan are meant to signal that if Pakistan doesnt stop the Taliban then America will conduct pre-emptive strikes against them inside Pakistan.
Islamabads ambiguous response lacks credibility. It denies Taliban and Al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan but cracks down on foreign or Pakistani journalists who try to verify its claim. It has signed peace deals with Talibanised elements in the tribal areas but is not averse to occasionally rocketing them at American insistence. Last week, two such strikes were carried out. This approach is wearing thin. The Americans are not appeased while the local tribal backlash against the Americans, General Musharraf and the Pakistan Army is spilling over into the rest of the country. Why is General Musharraf clinging to this failing strategy which is alienating his international friends without diminishing the hatred of extremists for him?
The answer lies in a national security doctrine long nourished by the Pakistans military intelligence agencies. It says that (1) Afghanistan must not be allowed to fall into the hands of pro-India elements, like the Northern Alliance Uzbek-Tajik ethnic combine (2) It should therefore be dominated by pro-Pakistan Pakhtuns who have historically straddled both Pakistan and Afghanistan (3) These Pakhtuns should not be secular, or pro-Russia or pro-India like earlier Pakhtun regimes until 1990 and the current Karzai regime (4) The Islamic Pakhtun Taliban should be supported as the least objectionable option. It is this doctrine that has spawned sectarian violence and fundamentalism in Pakistan and enabled Al Qaeda to take root in Afghanistan. In short, it is the Pakistan militarys obsession with India on its eastern border that is at the root of its Afghanistan policies on its western border.
Until now, the price of this doctrine was paid by Pakistanis because the military is all powerful and unaccountable. But the Al-Qaeda-Taliban nexus has sucked the US into the region and pitted the Pakistani militarys regional interests against the American military-industrial complexs global ambitions. The Pakistani militarys assessment is that the Americans have no long term staying power in the region, as demonstrated by their impending retreat from Iraq, and that Pakistan is sure to rebound as the key player in Afghanistan, hence the need to retain its Taliban assets.
This means that Mush-Bush interests may diverge in 2007-8. Mr Bush wants an outright victory over the Taliban while Mr Musharraf means to deny him exactly that. Meanwhile, anti-Americanism is growing in Pakistan and the political opposition is ready to exploit any opportunity to weaken the Musharraf regime. We should therefore expect a chorus of foreign and local calls for democracy and taming of the Pak army by Democrats and Republicans alike.
There are two options. The Pakistan military establishment can continue to play devious power games at home and abroad, deepen ethnic and religious fissures in the country, demean and weaken the democratic impulse of the people and lead Pakistan into isolation and despair. Or it can bury its obsession with India, allow Afghanistan to acquire an autonomous, moderate, pro-West centre of gravity, focus on rolling back the tide of religious extremism and build a stable and sustainable economy.
Posted by: john ||
01/19/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There's a "democratic impulse" in Pakistan? Which planet is that country on? The only thing the terrestrial Pakistani electorate seems to want is "more Islam."
The Quran does prescribe purdah. That doesn't mean women should obey it.
By Taslima Nasrin
My mother used purdah. She wore a burqa with a net cover in front of the face. It reminded me of the meatsafes in my grandmother's house. One had a net door made of cloth, the other of metal. But the objective was the same: keeping the meat safe. My mother was put under a burqa by her conservative family. They told her that wearing a burqa would mean obeying Allah. And if you obey Allah, He would be happy with you and not let you burn in hellfire. My mother was afraid of Allah and also of her own father. He would threaten her with grave consequences if she didn't wear the burqa.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john ||
01/19/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You go girl!
And, oh yeah, try to keep safe from the fanatics (the only legitimte reason for donning a burka).
#2
I wonder what the impotence rate among arab men is.
I bet it's really high, what with all the burqas, wife beating and general low self-esteem issues that pervade the arab psyche.
#3
Power is an aphrodisiac. Muslim men have little power in their everyday lives. Just think about how rarely they could get their little soldiers to stand at attention if their had no power over women.
A side note: Jihad gives muslims a sense of power. With Mo-man's giving them license, it's little wonder they are raping rabbits in Africa, South Asia, Caucasus, Balkins and horny little pricks visiting prostitutes and strip clubs in the west.
Posted by: ed ||
01/19/2007 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Excellent article, Taslima Nasrin. You found your voice, God bless ya. There are only two things missing from your last paragraph:
"What should women do? They should protest against this discrimination. They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years. They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights. They should throw away this apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas."
The first thing to do is for every woman you know to buy a gun and plenty of bullets. Then you and your sisters will be REALLY ready to live a fully autonomous life, for when the vice squads and rabid family members come to force submission and honor on you, you will be able to "persuade" them that you ain't going back.
NEW DELHI: Controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen's article in national weekly, Outlook , criticising the wearing of the veil by women has drawn the ire of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, which on Thursday said she should be thrown out of the country.
Taslima should be thrown out of the country, AIMPLB member Kamal Farooqi said. The article written by her in Outlook was derogatory and outrageous.
Farooqi also said the AIMPLB will soon approach the external affairs ministry to ask that Taslima be thrown out of India. The author has been living in India ever since she fled Bangladesh in 1994 after having received death threats for her novel Lajja .
Taslima, in an article entitled, Let's burn the Burqa , criticised the wearing of veils and asked Muslim women to throw away this apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas .
Taslima's article was written with the intention of hurting Muslim sentiments and was highly objectionable, he further said.
Posted by: john ||
01/19/2007 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Muslim women should emigrate to the West. Muslim men should be expelled from the West. After that the problems with Islam will sort itself out within a generation.
#7
Jules has a good point. I recommend keeping the bag but dumping the full-cover hood. Muslim control freaks will still object, but if a burka can be used to hide a guy, it can be used to hide a pistol.
#8
Taslima should be thrown out of the country, AIMPLB member Kamal Farooqi said. The article written by her in Outlook was derogatory and outrageous.
Well, that or maybe you should, Kamal. Your treatment of women is derogatory and outrageous.
If we were allied with an Iraqi government that, however weak, was truly national -- cross-confessional and dedicated to fighting a two-front war against Baathist insurgents and Shiite militias -- a surge of American troops, together with a change of counterinsurgency strategy, would have a good chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, the Iraqi political process has given us Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite coalition.
Its beginning was inauspicious. Months of wrangling produced a coalition of the three major Shiite religious parties, including that of Moqtada al-Sadr. Given Maliki's legitimacy as the first democratically elected leader of Iraq, however, he was owed a grace period of, say, six months to show whether he could indeed act as a national leader.
By November, his six months were up and the verdict was clear: He could not. His government is hopelessly sectarian. It protects Sadr, as we saw dramatically when Maliki ordered the lifting of U.S. barricades set up around Sadr City in search of a notorious death squad leader. It is enmeshed with Iran, as we saw when Maliki's government forced us to release Iranian agents found in the compound of one of his coalition partners.
The Saddam hanging did not change anything, but it did illuminate the deeply sectarian nature of this government. If it were my choice, I would not "surge'' American troops in defense of such a government. I would not trust it to deliver its promises. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus thinks otherwise. Petraeus, who will be leading our forces in Iraq, has not only served two and a half years there, but has also literally written the book on counterinsurgency. He believes that with an augmentation of U.S. troops, a change of tactics and the support of three additional Iraqi brigades, he can pacify Baghdad.
Petraeus wants to change the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, at least in Baghdad, from simply hunting terrorists to securing neighborhoods. In other words, from search-and-destroy to stay-and-protect. He thinks that he can do this with only a modest increase of five American brigades.
I am confident that Petraeus knows what he's doing and that U.S. troops will acquit themselves admirably. I'm afraid the effort will fail, however, because the Maliki government will undermine it.
The administration view -- its hope -- is that, whatever Maliki's instincts, he can be forced to act in good faith by the prospect of the calamity that will befall him if he lets us down and we carry out our threat to leave. The problem with this logic is that it is contradicted by the president's simultaneous pledge not to leave "before the job is done.''
In this high-stakes game of chess, what is missing is some intermediate move on our part -- some Plan B that Maliki believes Bush might actually carry out -- the threat of which will induce him to fully support us in this battle for Baghdad. He won't believe the Bush threat to abandon Iraq. He will believe a U.S. threat of an intermediate redeployment within Iraq that might prove fatal to him but not necessarily to the U.S. interest there.
We need to define that intermediate strategy. Right now there are only three policies on the table: (1) the surge, which a majority of Congress opposes, (2) the status quo, which everybody opposes, and (3) the abandonment of Iraq, which appears to be the default Democratic alternative.
What is missing is a fourth alternative, both as a threat to Maliki and as an actual fallback if the surge fails. The Pentagon should be working on a sustainable Plan B whose major element would be not so much a drawdown of troops as a drawdown of risk to our troops. If we had zero American casualties a day, there would be as little need to withdraw from Iraq as there is to withdraw from the Balkans.
We need to find a redeployment strategy that maintains as much latent American strength as possible, but with minimal exposure. We say to Maliki: you let us down and we dismantle the Green Zone, leave Baghdad and let you fend for yourself; we keep the airport and certain strategic bases in the area; we redeploy most of our forces to Kurdistan; we maintain a significant presence in Anbar province where we are having success in our one-front war against al-Qaeda and the Baathists. Then we watch. You can have your Baghdad civil war without us. We will be around to pick up the pieces as best we can.
This is not a great option, but fallbacks never are. It does have the virtue of being better than all the others, if the surge fails. It has the additional virtue of increasing the chances that the surge will succeed.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Former vice president Walter Mondale on Friday criticized Vice President Dick Cheney's role in the White House, and said former president Jimmy Carter never would have tolerated Cheney's actions. "I think that Cheney has stepped way over the line," Mondale said.
