Thursday, October 27, 2005
Re(2): 'UNSCOM: Chronology of Main Events', www.un.org, UNSCOM report
A response to a poster named AK at the BelmontClub:
Your first post stated: “Why was his nuclear program apparently shelved in 1994?”
Here is the United Nations official documentation regarding UNSCOM…
After your date of compliance:
8 Aug 1995: Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon.
Sep 1997: Iraq provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme. An international panel of experts is convened in New York to discuss Iraq’s declaration. The panel unanimously finds Iraq’s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.
Oct 1997: UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional, large quantities of chemical weapons related equipment and precursors chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that part of the equipment had been used for CW production. Only in May 1997, on the basis of UNSCOM's investigations, did Iraq admit that some of the equipment had indeed been used in the production of VX.
8 Apr 1998: The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council (S/1998/308). As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate.
9 Sep 1998: Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.
31 Oct 1998: Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemn Iraq’s decision to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM.
4 Nov 1998: The Executive Chairman informs the Council (S/1998/1032) that, as a result of Iraq’s actions, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Council with any level of assurance of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to retain and not to reestablish proscribed activities.
16 Dec 1998: The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq.
When you talk about ‘Containing Iraq’ and ‘Keeping Saddam in a Box’ (not your quotes – but your concept) I would recommend that you review the official United Nations webpage chronology regarding the topic on which you place so much confidence. Try using the find feature to look for such phases as: ‘denies access’, ‘Final and Complete Disclosure’, and ‘nuclear’. In it’s 7 ½ years of existence we had five ‘Final and Complete Disclosures’ of biological weapons, three ‘Final and Complete Disclosures’ of chemical weapons, and three ‘Final and Complete Disclosures’ of illegal missile development. All those ‘Final and Complete Disclosures’ were deemed false. We found a rather robust – if temporarily hidden and dormant – nuclear program. And finally, with the Oil-For-Food revelations noted in Wretchard’s post we have both a bypass of the Saddam in a Box strategy and an aggressive bribing of security council members to drop those sanctions on which your concept rests. Look back in the large newspapers even as late as early 2003 to review the positions of France, Russia, and Germany regarding the sanctions that both apparently (not really) kept Saddam contained and starved the children of Iraq.
I, personally, was not confident in those measures then, and I would be very distrustful of a Saddam popped out of the box now…
The Oxford English Dictionary has nominated the verb 'Borking' as a potential new English word in the 2006 edition of the dictionary. This was a close decision, but the fact that both major American political parties have now behaved in a way that defines the term 'to Bork' swayed the committee.
The committee would like to express appreciation to the blogs (another recent addition to the Oxford English Dictionary!!!) NationalReviewOnline.com and ConfirmThem.com. Without their expressive dialog the term 'to Bork' would have remained unviable as an entry into the Oxford English Dictionary!
Sunday, October 23, 2005
But I think there is nothing for me to say...
Unlike the chattering media class, I do not have to bloviate about something I know nothing about just to take space on either dead trees or underutilized air space...
To me, the only thing worth writing about is something I am having trouble describing. Look at this link regarding the make-up of our foreign terrorist adversaries who have been dispatched to their 72 raisins: http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/10/iraq_terrorist.php
Of interest is a pattern that seems to imply that al Qaeda is trying to cycle their foreign fighters. That is, they may be attempting to recruit and transport personnel from discrete regions. From the data, it looks as if much of this process has been destroyed. Many of the formerly successful recruiting regions seem to be drying up.
Have to put much more thought to this...
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Hannibal committed suicide in Syria after the Romans doggedly tracked him from one barbarian kingdom to another – conquering barbarian lands, coercing barbarian kings, and always on the heels of their quarry…
Hannibal died in the most graceful way available to him – an ignominious and lonely death by his own hand…
Hannibal’s death was ignoble and forgotten to history.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Re(2): 'U.S. intercepts al Zawahiri to al Zarqawi memo', The Security Watchtower, Mixed Humor
Re(3): 'Training the Iraqi Army - Revisited, Again', The Fourth Rail, Bill Roggio
Re(4): 'Iraqi Troop Strength', The Security Watchtower, Mixed Humor
The following is a comment I wrote in the Belmont club responding to legit concerns of another commenter. I am thinking that smart people are hearing the hum and chant of song deep in the tunnels of the ballpark:
1) AQ is hurting enough in Iraq to be willing to change its tactics. Obviously due to the combat losses but evidently due to the Muslim reaction to their butchery.
It will be difficult to change the dynamics in Iraq. The only opportunity that I can see is in the Iraq/Iran border region where the Brit have been playing the ‘soft’ hand. I think that the Brits are changing tactics as I write. I do not think al-Zarqawi has much influence in that region.2) They are patient. Much more so than are we. Knowing full well that no matter how many young jihadis die for their cause, new generations and half generations of their willing minions are being redied in the madrasses of Pakistan and Iran.
We have been patient for 4 ½ years. President Bush is a doggedly patient man – see the caterwauling about the Supreme Court nomination. See the effect the caterwauling of the 2004 election had on our activities – minimal at best. See the recent polling in the Middle East. Note that our valiant and brilliant enemy has WRITTEN into his enemy list the nation states that support his terror campaign. That was a terrible mistake.3) They still have a chain of command in place. Nothing like the structured environment of western armies but authority from top to bottom nonetheless.
The fact that we apparently got the message and al-Zarqawi didn’t signifies a rather weak chain of command. Zarqawi’s response via media outlets demonstrates the same. The fact that Zawahiri is asking for support and information likewise points to something.To those who seem to think this is a realpolitik conflict, and thus we will bail out ASAP and leave the region to strong men with a gangster mentality please note: We have been in the fight for 4 ½ years. Zarqawi has no influence in the north or south or east of Baghdad. His influence is rapidly degrading in the riverine region to the west of Baghdad. His bosses have just placed a long term challenge to his regional state sponsor. And, the Iraqi government – with a military trained by the best martial force in the world – is threatening that same state sponsor with repercussions. And, oil exports are now consistent and to levels approaching pre-1991 levels. And, most importantly, Zarqawi is being heavily out recruited mano-i-mano.
The Fat Lady is singing.
Unlike most leaders, President Bush will press the effort of eradicating al-Zarqawi’s structure completely. There will be nothing left of it. At that point, with a battle trained Iraqi military, do you find Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the southern ‘insurgents’ to be the strong horse? I would hate to be them. You have to know when you are winning so you can start planning your next battle in the Global War on Terror.
Thus, there is a bit of background hum to this battle, there is some serious practicing in Baghdad, and there is a full throated roar in Afghanistan. None of this ends the Global War on Terror!
Try the following the next time you appear on TV:
"Harriet Mier's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley
abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could
break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about
It is a clever adaptation of an argument based on ignorance, politics, elitism, and emotion.
It worked once, it might, just might, work again!!!
We absolutely require more Brahmin Constitutional Scholars on our Court!!!
Monday, October 03, 2005
Re(2): 'The Miers nomination: a safe play from Dubya's standpoint', www.beldar.blogs.com, Beldar
UPDATE (2005/10/04 0822): How many Brahmins do you want???
Like most conservatives I was waiting for the name L-U-T-T-I-G to emanate from the lips of our faithful servant and President.
Harriet Miers – Who the h*ll is that!!!
A quick read of the conservative blogs provided some understanding but an awful lot of hot air. Those who do not know her wanted a big name and an Armageddon. Those who do know her expect her to be a fine justice that brings much to this Court. Here are my first impressions:
- Mrs. Miers will bring balance to an Ivory Towers Supreme Court. While Chief Justice Roberts is a good man, with a fine judicial temperament, my one concern is that those who occupy that rarified air forget what the rest of us breathe. Mrs. Miers will present the ‘common’ reality of ‘common law’ interpretations by the Supreme Court. She will force the unintentional consequences of Supreme Court action to be intentional. Based on Beldar’s post, it is apparent that she has spent the better part of her lifetime battling those consequences.
- Mrs. Miers was selected based on actions known to the President. She was not interviewed; she answered the President’s questions over the span of a decade or more. She answered his questions without being coerced to sell herself. There is no doubt in the President’s mind as to how she will function on the Court. There is no doubt in my mind how she will function on the Court.
- The confirmation hearing process will be de-Borked. She will have to answer questions posed by both Senators Leahy and Hatch, by Durbin and Sessions, and by Feinstein and Kyl. She will not pass through the Judiciary Committee without presenting her case to all Senators on that committee. Much like President Bush shaking the status quo on illegal immigration, the nomination of Harriet Miers forces controversial issues to the forefront. Issues that to this point are mere talking points and stalking horses. That dance is done, that song is over. Chief Justice Roberts was the last and best dancer to that tune. I commend the President for this.
I believe the Conservatives who have fought for three decades to groom ideas and nominees were understandably flummoxed. President Bush did not call their ‘closer’ into the game. Instead, I think he looked at the current, and near future, chemistry of the Court and made an incredibly difficult decision. He freaked his base, but provided a grounding to his United States Supreme Court.
Enjoy the political season…
Enjoy his third pick…
UPDATE (2005/10/04 0822):
Bush to Conservatives - How many Brahmins do you want on the Supreme Court? I think we have enough Constitutional scholars; it might be time to select someone from the real world...
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Where do you want to fight the Global War on Terror?
It is a simple question – and one that must be answered before one can knowledgeably discuss the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the greater Middle East. It is a question that one must answer before one argues following points like 1) Is the war being fought effectively, 2) Are we concentrating enough on the defense of the homeland, and 3) is the United States a virulent empire?
The Administration has made it clear that they desire to fight the war over there.
I ask you to find another region in the world in which to fight this declared war. Please use the comments section.