Three very interesting articles on Iraq, via Instapundit:
Leave a Comment » | 
Military | 
Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
Iranian forces are not only present in Iraq, but actively participated in the recent battle for Basra, the London Times is reporting. (Via Instapundit.)
The war in Iraq seems to have entered a fourth phase. First there was the brief war against Saddam. Second there was domestic insurgency, largely by Baathist dead-enders, which was longer than the invasion but shorter than the conflict that has followed. Third was the al Qaeda insurgency, which succeeded for a while but has been largely defeated by the surge. Significantly, both the second and third phases were against non-state actors.
Now the war seems to be changing its character again, to a direct conflict between Iran and its Iraqi surrogates on one side, and Iraq and the Coalition on the other side. In retrospect we were too slow to adjust to each of the previous shifts, and I fear we will be too slow in this case as well.
In a sense, the new problem is easier. Iran poses a conventional threat that we can address. Deterrence is now a plausible strategy, which it never was against al Qaeda or the Baathist dead-enders. But we need a credible threat of escalation, and plan for action if that fails. It doesn’t appear that we have either, and if we did, it doesn’t seem as though the Democrats (who have no desire any more to win) would permit us to carry one out.
Leave a Comment » | Military, Political | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
The YAL-1 Airborne Laser, explained in a Boeing promotional video. (Warning: fairly cheesy.) Apparently they’ve licked the problem of atmospheric distortion by analyzing the return from a tracking laser before firing the high-energy laser.
Leave a Comment » | Military, Technological | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
Prime Minister Harper made the announcement today:
Canada accomplished what it set out to achieve at the NATO summit, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday, including having the conditions met for extending the country’s mission in Afghanistan.
(Via Instapundit.)
Between that, and the French pledge of more troops, it’s a good day for the Afghan people, and for the global war on terror.
Leave a Comment » | Military | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
NATO leaders agreed to extend our missile defense system to cover Europe by installing a radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland.
Missile defense is now official policy not only of the United States, but of NATO as well. Hopefully this will make it hard for the Democrats to shut down a system that is already installed and working. Honestly, I don’t understand why they continue to oppose it. The system is built and has passed 28 of 29 tests since it was deployed. Reagan, their nemesis, has passed away. It simply goes beyond reason now.
BONUS: An interesting video on the state-of-the-art in missile defense. (Via Instapundit.) It’s half an hour long, but well worth it if you’re interested in missile defense. (Bear with it, they do eventually point the camera at the screen.)
UPDATE (6/17): Sigh, the testing record link is stale now. I assemble my own chronology here. With my conservative methodology, I calculated a 23-2 record.
Leave a Comment » | Military, Political | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
Stephen Green asks whether NATO serves any purpose any more:
So now we’re inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.
Great. Uh… then what?
NATO used to mean something. It used to do something. Namely: defend Western Europe from a Soviet attack. If Russian tanks ever came streaming across the North German Plain, we had a plan in place to deal with it. . .
If Russia were to attack Ukraine, what would we do? Lithuania? How about even Poland, or eastern Germany? Do we have a plan? . . .
Well, no. NATO isn’t a defensive alliance anymore. It’s a club. . . It’s an alliance without a plan, and without even a real enemy.
Actually, I think NATO’s primary purpose is the same as it ever was, to defend Europe against Russian attack. Whatever else NATO does is a sideshow. For now, of course, the Russian threat has receded, and that’s reflected in NATO’s clubliness. In the future, who can say? Particularly in light of Putin’s recent belligerence, I’m not going to go out on a limb and say that the Russian threat is gone forever.
The reason to expand NATO is simple: to consolidate our gains. We’re pushing the tripwire all the way back to Russia’s doorstep. Conquerors typically start with a few small countries that no one cares much about before they start the real campaign. We’re telling the Kremlin that at their first sign of aggression, they will have to deal with us.
Make no mistake: the Kremlin sees this. That’s why they scream bloody murder every time NATO expands. I’m not saying that Putin has any plans to expand, but I’m sure he hasn’t ruled it out. This makes it look a little less attractive.
So, sure, we should have a plan for a war with Russia. What’s more, I’m sure we do. If, God forbid, we ever need to fight that war, I’m sure the plan will fare no better than any other plan ever does. Still, at least we’ll be starting a little farther east.
Leave a Comment » | Military | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
Bill Roggio reports at the Long War Journal that the Iraqi Army’s operations are continuing against those Mahdi Army elements that refuse to lay down their arms. To the extent that peace has fallen, it’s because most of the Mahdi Army has obeyed al-Sadr’s call to lay down their arms.
The mainstream media seems convinced that this is a defeat for al-Maliki, but I don’t get it, at least not yet. If the Iraqi government ends as the sole military power in southern Iraq (other than the coalition), Maliki wins. The possible problem is that Sadr has been able to preserve his base of power after defeats in the past, but it looks as though Maliki may finally be wise to him.
Leave a Comment » | Military | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
Instapundit has a round-up on media coverage of the operation in Basra. Ed Morrissey indicts the media:
Did our media give anyone this context? No. They reported it as some kind of spontaneous eruption of rebellion without noting at all that a nation can hardly be considered sovereign while its own security forces cannot enter a large swath of its own territory. And in the usual defeatist tone, they reported that our mission in Iraq had failed without waiting to see what the outcome of the battle would be.
But Ed Cone disagrees, pointing to two stories that did give context. Cone is partly right; the article I read at the Washington Post did give some context (can’t find it now, sorry), and didn’t present it as spontaneous rebellion. However, I think that Morrissey is more right than wrong.
The media has utterly failed to educate the public on the state of the war, preferring to focus on its “grim milestones.” (I suppose it’s more efficient their way: they’ve been able to represent the entire war in 12 bits.) To anyone who is informed on the war, it has been perfectly obvious that this had to happen eventually. Morrissey saves me the trouble of explaining why:
The British left a power vacuum behind in the south that the Baghdad government could not fill at the time, and Sadr and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council’s Badr Brigades filled it instead. They have fought each other and some smaller Shi’ite groups for control of the streets ever since 2005. . . The Iraqi government had no choice but to challenge the militias for control of Basra and the surrounding areas, but they waited until the Iraqi Army had enough strength to succeed.
This explanation rates in complexity somewhere between the domino theory and “Berlin is that way” so the media ought to have been able to handle it.
UPDATE: Day by day weighs in.
Leave a Comment » | Media Failure, Military | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
Al-Sadr has ordered his followers to “end all presence on the streets” and not to carry arms against Iraqi forces. I guess we know who’s winning.
Still, Al-Sadr has been very slippery in the past, managing to escape destruction each time he’s been defeated. I hope the Iraqi army finishes the job this time.
UPDATE: Bill Roggio reports promising news from Baghdad and Basra. (Via Instapundit.)
Leave a Comment » | Military | Permalink
Posted by K. Crary
Internet Scofflaw 