I have been having very vivid daydreams about the imminent assasination of Barack Obama.  He is about to be vowed in in a glass building.  He has recieved the most death threats of any previous presient-elect.  This isn’t exactly  fictional.

Clearly, his assasination is the worst thing that could possibly happen to America - today certainly, this year most probably, indefinately possibly.  As such, it is fantastic stomping groud for impressive ‘what if’ scenarios.  What if Washington burns again?  What if the riots don’t stop?  What if the black urbanites declare the cities annexed from the United States and vow to kill any white people who dare remain within them?  What if liberal shame leads the white to step down?  And they all move to the rural areas?  Industry breaks down; officies close; transportation becomes color coded - with no means of moving supplies between the two areas.  The black urbanites would begin to starve.  Pride would fall to the basic survival instinct.  Those white urbanites who had been liberally guilted into leaving would try to help, would want to help, but the rural whites would stop them.  The resources being theirs.  The rural whites being angry at the expullsion, allowing the black urbanites to starve to death, thinking they deserved it.  Would the UN intervene?  Would the races decide they could never live in harmony?  War over the land?  One group expelling the other.  Would Britain take American refugees?  Would it matter which race won and which race was in refuge?

Would it be possible to repair race relations in America following this event?  Ever?

What do you guys think?  What if he was assassinated?

OK, OK, I give up! I’ve gotten such a tremendous response from people clamoring for more information on the last installment of “Cool Airplane Photo Challenge” that I’m just going to dedicate an entire post to it!

And, to avoid offending anyone’s tender sensibilities, I’ve reviewed all these photos for any possible nose art, and I can guarantee there are no drawings of any prurient nature among them!

I’ve got to admit that the last Challenge was pretty obscure. But these looked so bizarre, er…interesting, that I couldn’t pass them up.

In the 1930’s the Soviets conducted a series of projects termed Zveno, testing the feasibility of using parasite aircraft for various purposes. In all of these projects the attached aircraft were started prior to takeoff and the extra thrust of their engines used to improve takeoff performance:

–Zveno-1, A two-engined Tupolev TB-1 bomber with a modified Tupolev I-4 fighter (lower wings removed) attached to the top of each wing:

The I-4 was the first all-metal soviet fighter:

——————————–

–Zveno-2 used a four-engined TB-3 with two Polikarpov I-5s on the wings and a third one on top of the fuselage. A ramp was used to load the fighters. This made the wing-mounted fighters easy to load, but the one on top of the fuselage was so difficult to install by hand that they soon stopped even trying to launch it, and eventually took the wings off and used it strictly as a extra engine :

The I-5 was the standard Soviet fighter from 1933 to 1936,and was the first of a series of successful fighter designs produced by Nikolai Polikarpov’s design bureau. In 1929 their previous fighter design had been considered a failure by the government, so naturally all 450 members of the Design Bureau were imprisoned , with Polikarpov receiving a death sentence. In 1931 those bleeding-heart Soviets reduced the sentence to 10 years of forced labor and transfered him to the Special Design Bureau at Butyrka Prison. The government was so pleased with the I-5 that in 1933 Stalin released him and his design bureau. Polikarpov was later hailed as “King of Fighters”.

Below is an I-5 on the wing of the TB-3 about to be released–the tail is free, but the main gear are still attached:

———————————-

Zvenco-3: A TB-3 with a Grigorovich Z-1 fighter under each wing. Here’s a Z-1, which was a monoplane that was innovative in its own right, being designed to carry a single-shot recoilless rifle under each wing:

———————————

The Zveno-5 carried one Z-1 stowed under a TB-3. The bomber couldn’t land or take of f with the Z-1 attached , so they had to hook up in the air. This led to the world’s first in-flight docking of two airplanes on March 23, 1936:

——————————–

–Zvenco-6 carried a Polikarpov I-16 monoplane fighter under each wing. They first tried it with the I-16s’ landing gear down, but on rough runways the aircraft would occasionally strike the ground on takeoff role. With the gear up the clearance problem was solved. The I-16s could unattach from the bomber, but they could not reattach.

The Polikarpov I-16 was a extremely successful fighter that was clearly the best in the world when it was introduced. Used extensively in the Spanish Civil War, it was the frontline soviet aircraft at the beginning of WWII. By that time it was generally outclassed by newer fighters

——————————–

–For Zvenco-7, the two I-16s attached in the air, but it proved too difficult to do so routinely.

——————————–

–Aviamatka (Airborne Mothership), took off with two I-16s under the wings and two I-5s on top of the wings; a Z-1 attached while airborne:

——————————

–Finally, SPB (Sostavnoi Pikiruyuschiy Bombardirovschik, or Combined Dive Bomber) was essentially a Zveno-6, with two I-16s under the wings. In this case each I-16 carried two 550lb bombs. The purpose of the arrangement was to increase the range of the strike force and to allow the I-16s to carry heavier bombs than they could take off with on their own. The SPB saw limited action during WWII, with at least some success:

Sorry, as there were no winning entries on this challenge, no one will receive The Fabulous Prizes that were offered. Perhaps you’ll do better next time

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/26/russia.vote.georgia/index.html

This does not bode well.

Well, the link doesn’t work anymore. It was about Russians, and how they seem hell bent on starting WW3 . It seems to me that the Russian diplomatic stance on the whole “supporting rebels that are against american allies” thing is “Screw you, we do what we want”

Back of neck, gettin’ dirty and gritty.

I’m told it was 122 degrees on Monday, and we’ve had a semi-permanent dust storm for the past week or so.

——————————————————————————————

From a soldier here at the PRT:

Subj: Three things to ponder…

1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments

C O W S:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during
the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in
Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the
state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But
they are unable to locate 21 million illegal aliens wandering around our
country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N:
The Government keeps talking about drafting a Constitution for
Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of
really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we’re not using
it anymore.

T H E 1 0 C O M M A N D M E N T S:
The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments posted
in a courthouse is this: You cannot post ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’, ‘Thou
Shalt Not Commit Adultery’, and ‘Thou Shall Not Lie’ in a building full
of lawyers, judges and Politicians…
It creates a hostile work environment.

—————————————————————————————

You may have read about the bomb that was smuggled into a District Council meeting in Sadr City yesterday that killed Iraqis and some Americans, including one that many of our military colleagues knew well. One of our PRT members was present as well, but she had slipped out to go to the latrine right before it went off.

So even though the security situation is much better these days, the bad guys are still out there.

On the other hand, it’s been weeks since there’s been any rocket or mortar attacks on the Green Zone.

This week WEF2 and I took some leave, but didn’t go anywhere. We planned on sleeping in, hanging by the pool, and generally goofing off for five days. So far we’re two for four, and have only had to go in on Sunday and Tuesday. Tomorrow’s the last day and it looks like I only have one meeting at 0830 and then nothing else for the day.

A Marine and his dog

Well, WEF3 has come though and given me a good answer to the Cool Airplane Photo Challenge, but continues a disturbing trend by only giving me only half the answer. It’s clear I’m going to have to be more specific next time

Yes indeed, the picture was taken from a zeppelin (The USS Macon, in fact), so WEF3 gets credit for a half kill. Here’s a picture of a different airplane hooking up:

But what about the airplane in the photo? WEF3 failed to identify the Curtis F9C. Here are two in the act with the USS Macon. Notice they’ve had their landing gear removed, and carry an extra fuel tank instead:

Here’s a better picture of the F9C, this time with gear. It’s in the hanger of the USS Akron. You can barely see through the opening that another aircraft is approaching:

The Akron was lost in April, 1932. The Macon crashed at sea in February 1935, going down with four F9Cs and ending the Navy’s Airship program. The surviving two F9Cs were used as land utility aircraft. One was scrapped in 1947, and the other flew until 1940, when it was turned over to the Smithsonian Institution.

Ok, still continuing on this theme. Name BOTH these airplanes and explain what this picture is about*:

*Fabulous Prizes at Stake!!

————————————————————————–

–Superman is one of the few individuals who could possibly survive a confrontation with Jack Bauer. But that is only because he can fly away.

–When car pooling with Jack, never yell shotgun.

–Jack Bauer picks up women by telling them, “You’ve read my file… you know what I am capable of.”

————————————————————————–

WEF1, Signing off

So, once again I was confronted with a choice.  I could go to Burger King or McDonald’s to purchase a normal sized cheeseburger for just over a dollar or I could go to Baja Fresh or Chipotle’s and get a ridiculous amount of fake Mexican food.

Now, to put this in context, I have had nothing but cheap cheeseburgers for lunch for over a week now.  I had to do it.  I knew it was wrong, but I had to do it.

I went to Baja Fresh.  I ordered the Chicken Fajitas with a side of sour cream and a coke - ELEVEN DOLLARS!  Then I took my newly acquired meal outside to demolish it.  Three tortillas, sour cream, guacamole, chicken.  Lots of chicken.  I put together my first masterpiece.  I ate it.  I realized that I was no longer hungry . . . there was hardly a dent in my meal.

At this point I would casually slide the plate over to WEF3 and he would look at me with amazement as if to say - you can’t possibly be done already - and then eat the whole thing in under 60 seconds.

WEF3 did not happen to be with me this afternoon.  So I had to make a decision.  Let eleven dollars go to waste . . . or eat the damn food.

Now let’s acknowledge that I have taken basic economics.  I know that having already paid for the food, the eleven dollars is sunk costs and I should be making a choice anwew.  This choice should be based upon actual facts - such as the fact that I wasn’t hungry and clearly don’t need the extra calories.

Economics failed me;  I ate the whole damn place.

Really a miserable experience - I have committed some sort of treason against my credit card balance, my health and my outward appearance all in one swift blow.

And thus, fine citizens of World WEF, the question is this:  Where have all the Taco Bells Gone???

I know that I am perpetually spastic.  I apologize.  I don’t think I want to go to LSE.  I know, I know, it’s prestigious and interesting and I’ll be able to work at an NGO in Africa after, maybe write a novel on globalization, definitely have more credibility in general.  There are definitely reasons to go.  But I’m getting cold feet, I guess, and for legitimate reasons.   This is going to be really expensive.  It isn’t only the $30,000 in loans for actually attending - living expenses are going to be ridiculous as well.  I know that grad school will be beneficial to anything I want to do, but I’m not sure it will be so beneficial that it is worth having a $600 bill every month for the rest of my life.

I’m thinking about enlisting instead.  I e-mailed a bunch of recruiters today.  If I know I want to be a war correspondent then it makes sense that I should first fully understand war and the military and whatnot.  Plus, it isn’t like I have to enlist with an infantry unit.  They have this great school called DINFOS where they train military jounalists - both print and broadcast.  From what I’ve researched all I have to do is pass a voice test, enlist and I can go to this school right after boot camp.  There aren’t any guarantees that I’ll actually be able to report from a war zone but I think chances are probably good. It requires a six year commitment - which is terrifying.  But basically I get to go to journalism school for free and then have a guaranteed job in international journalism for six years.  Even if I don’t get to go into a war zone, that’s gotta help me get a war/military journalistic job at a major newspaper after I get out . . .  What do you guys think?

/rant on

So I’m standing post at the front gate, when what do I see but an army convoy rolling up. I think, “ok, cool, no problem, we have some army guys living with us, they’re about due to get relieved”.

They get out of their humvees and the first thing I notice is the large MP patches on their shoulders. I think this is a little odd. I mean, MPs? In Iraq? Patrolling the streets? I think “Meh, doesnt matter, they’ll figure it out as they go along”

Then I get a real surprise. Two of them are female.

This is, to say the least, slightly disconcerting to me. The army has somehow managed to circumvent the whole ‘No females in combat” thing but assigning them to “Combat” MP units.

Now, they dont live with us, but they show up every morning and run patrols out of our house. They’re already causing problems. Some of the other MPs have taken to standing guard on the head when the females are in there (and yes, we do have stalls). The conversation went something like this:

MP- “Hey, there’s a female in here”

Me- “OK”

MP-”No, I mean you have to leave”

Me- “I need to piss, and I have a patrol in 5 minutes, I think she’ll survive”

So they tried to kick me out of my own bathroom. In my house. Not happening.

Of course, they had to give one of the females a SAW. Gender Equality. Doesn’t matter that the damn thing weighs more than she does, she has the same right to carry it as anyone else. We always give the SAW to one of our bigger guys, and they give it to some 5′5 female. Wow. Just Wow.

And of course every time they go on a foot patrol I get the wonderful mental image of one of them getting blown into a fine red mist. More than slightly disturbing.

This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.

/rant off

When am I not nice?

Your tutor has actually described one of the “nightmare scenarios” that could be a result of our premature departure. The Sunni states may not be willing to stand by while Iran takes political control of Iraq. As far as they’re concerned, Iran is scary enough right now, and they might be willing to fight to prevent an Iran-Iraq Shia axis.

Although oil is one (of many) reasons Iraq is so important, Iran and Saudi Arabia have plenty of their own oil. It’s really about Iran being “on the march” and a defensive response from the Sunni states.

Where your tutor goes off the rails is how this would be in any way an acceptable development. We start with Saudi Arabia and Egypt vs Iran. Syria and Jordan might want to stay out but could easily be drawn in. I guess at least we’ll see who has chemical weapons in their inventory and how close Iran is to a nuke. Of course there’s the distinct possibility that someone would decide in the midst of all this that it’s a fine opportunity to finally deal with Israel, and Israel certainly has nukes. If Israel’s in it, there are serious pressures on us to get involved in one way or another (if only to keep Israel from using those nukes). There’s no way to predict how any of this would play out.

Meanwhile as Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia attack each other’s oil fields, the world’s economies go completely down the tubes, which creates other new instabilities with additional unpredictable consequences.

And what does all this get us? While several of these states support terrorism, they are not the source of it, and the Al-Qaida leadership in the Pakistan Tribal areas wouldn’t be much affected. S0 there’s no reason in principle that Al Qaida et al would not continue their campaigns, particularly attacks by Islamists living outside of the Middle East in Europe or the US. Our withdrawal would constitute a huge victory for the Islamists, as well as (from their point of view) demonstrating our weakness. It’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t want to keep the pressure on. With all that said, your tutor could be right and with all the chaos, they might figure it’s a good time to keep their heads down. But that would only be for a temporary period.

So this scenario provides for a humiliating defeat for the US in Iraq, with all that that implies, and creates a situation where all sorts of really terrible things can happen, and not just to the people of the region. We’d have little influence over events, and could only watch as everything spun out of control. In addition The economies of the West would be crippled. And for all this we may get a possible temporary respite from the Islamist terror campaign.

There’s always a temptation to just walk away and let things sort themselves out, and in places like Africa, I’ve sometimes thought that that might be our best policy. But the West is too interconnected with the Middle East to just roll the dice and hope for the best.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt would tolerate a secular, democratic Iraq that was not an Iranian satellite, even if it was ruled by by a Shia administration. This would be particularly the case if Iraq maintained good relations with the US.

Iran remains the key to a successful outcome in Iraq. We either have to leave Iraq strong enough to resist the Iranians, or take care of Iran ourselves.

Hey WEF1:

One of my tutors has a theory that I’d like you to comment on. He says that if we pulled out of Iraq then Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria would all want the country, due to its oil, and that each of the above countries would not allow the other countries to control Iraq. Thus, the Middle East would handle itself and the threat of terrorism would go down because they’d be warring/dealing with each other and their own country’s interests.

Thoughts?

And be nice, because this particular tutor occasionally reads this blog. ‘Cause I share. ‘Cause I’m like that

(This may seem a little impersonal for wexforce, but I wrote it for a larger audience, as part of my reflections on life. I hope all is well, family, and can’t wait to see you again. Life is very good to me here.)

Over the past three days, I’ve had my 1000% daily recommended dose of ‘Pope’: waving “hi” and “bye” at the National Shrine, attending the mass at Nationals Stadium, reading his flurry of speeches/addresses/homilies over and over again, and most importantly - praying that the Holy Spirit will open my heart to learning from our Church and its leader. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the opening salvo of our Holy Spirit, coming in the Pope’s words at the White House:

“Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad.”

These words crushed me.

How could the Pope repeat United States propaganda, and express admiration for US bloodshed? I racked my mind for ways to interpret his words in another way, but I couldn’t. Not in that context. Not at the White House with the President standing next to him. Not as the Iraq war rages on. The Pope meant what he said, but not as propaganda. He spoke sincerely. He marvels at American monuments and sees those who “sacrificed their lives defense of freedom”. Pope Benedict looks at our country and sees . . . goodness. When I look at our country, I see . . . evil. I want the Pope to condemn war and abortion, not to call our country ‘great’ and ‘religious’. I want brimstone and fire and words of fury! But from the mouth and heart of our Pope come nothing but goodness.

I have so much to learn.

After a great deal of reflection and prayer, my heart has moved, my neck has bent. I have seen something startling: we live in a society where “defense of life” and “nonviolence” are mostly mutually exclusive, and because the defense of life must take priority over a commitment to nonviolence, most Christians are duty-bound to defend life with the least amount of violence possible.

Did I just write that? I did. But only after three days of gut-wrenching prayer!

I am not suggesting that violence is good, or even Christian. I am suggesting, however, that the circumstances of our society require us to choose defense of life over nonviolence. In other words - if the only way I can defend life is to use a gun, then I must use a gun.

Those familiar with nonviolence and theology will hear echos of the “fallen world” defense of violence in my thoughts. But here’s where I depart from such thinking: Jesus Christ has redeemed the world, and has sent us into the world with his Holy Spirit. This fallen world can be transformed. And we are the ones called to transform it.

But at present, our fallen society has few practical, concrete, and readily available means of nonviolently defending life. Boycotts will not save us from a bullet to the head. Strikes will not stop robbers from breaking into our homes. Nonviolent communication will not stop those who do not wish to communicate. We have no nonviolent alternatives to police forces or militaries. We have no nonviolent alternatives to courts and prisons. Nonviolent means of defending life are mostly confined to idealistic exhortations to “love your enemy and trust in God’s grace to work miracles.”

Nonviolent means of defending life must be reasonable, passing the common sense rule, being as readily available as the gun in Target, or a call to 911. To criticize those who use violence to defend life when there are no other ways to defend life is . . . well . . . possibly scandalous.

To summarize, Gandhi said:

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

Instead of offering concrete ways of defending home and family without violence, I have condemned all violence in every situation. I forced people into a corner - demanding they renounce violence while giving them nothing in its place - asking them to be “like a worm at the bidding of a bully.” I have fought to show violence as wrong in every situation, but never considered that violence could be wrong yet relatively legitimate. In a not-yet-redeemed society, the evil of violence may be the least wrong choice, and our duty.

My advocacy of nonviolence has consisted in saying, “no, no, no!” to America. But our Pope tells us that Christianity is not “no, no, no,” but is “yes, yes, yes!” All his words and actions reverberate within the great “yes” that is Christ our hope. Not one word of “no” passed through his lips over the past three days, even as he spoke of evil. Instead, he proposed solutions aimed at transforming our society into one of peace and justice - a world where men and women can finally embrace nonviolence, “a world where it is easier to be good.”

It is time for me to do the same.

It’s amazing what a Pope can do. I feel like I’ve been through a war, and that this little reflection is but a brief respite. But thank God, and praise Him. He is GOOD.

Updated clarification:  I don’t feel like I’ve turned 180, even if it might seem that way from what I’ve written.   The development of my thought isn’t a 180 turn. It’s more like a 360. I am not saying that bloodshed will always be necessary. Just the opposite.

I believe in nonviolence. I hate violence. I think it is evil. But I understand now why it is legitimate for many (if not most) in our not-yet-redeemed society, where violence is the only option (or so it seems). It puts the burden on me, and others who have taken to heart “love of enemy” as the nucleus of the Christian revolution, to help build a society where nonviolence is available as a concrete solution to the fight against evil.  More than anything, I feel free to pursue and promote nonviolence in ways I never could before.

You ask what I meant when I said that real success in Iraq could only be achieved if we deal with Iran (whatever you think “deal with” means).

I think some people fail to recognize that the War on Terror was envisioned as a regional conflict. In my opinion, Afghanistan and Iraq were only the first steps in a campaign to transform the Middle East and strike at the root cause of terrorism– the suffering of peoples held down by despotic rulers and therefore willing to turn to an violent and intolerant form of Islam in frustration, in some cases even encouraged to do so by those despotic rulers.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. All needed regime change or major reform– to the greatest extent possible, this would be accomplished by 1)the shock of seeing the first two go down and 2)an irresistible wave of liberalization, but military action was not ruled out . It appears to have worked in Libya, and other countries in the region wavered, but the resistance in Iraq (more accurately our reaction to it) doomed this strategy. We had demonstrated weakness too often before– in Lebanon, in Somalia, and yes, in Vietnam. Like Saddam, Al Qaida was convinced the key was to inflict some casualties on the US and we would then quit–and in the long run, it looks like it’s working.  The press –by defining success or failure almost exclusively in terms of the number of U.S. casualties– and Democrats –for their own perverse reasons– became Al Qaida’s unwitting allies (joined by a segment of the Democratic party that is considerably more witting).

They didn’t succeed in getting us out of Iraq (yet), but they’ve stopped us cold in the region. Because we lack the will to do what is necessary.

—————————————————————————————————————————

As for Iraq, once the old regime was taken out, it’s regional rival Iran became predominant. Richer, with a much larger population, Iraq could barely keep up with Iran in the best of times. The Iranian people, while Persian rather than Arab, share the Shia sect with the majority of Iraq’s population, particularly in the south. At this time, even with us here in force, the Iranians exert an enormous influence in Iraq, including in the government.

If we get out of Iraq while leaving Iran as rich, confident, and aggressive as it is now, Iraq will not be able to keep them out, and before we know it, our sacrifices will have been wasted, because there will soon be another radical Islamic state in the region.
Of course not dealing with Iran also means it will soon have nuclear weapons, so you can factor that in as well.

As I say, we can do it now, or we can do it 10 years from now, but it will be a lot worse then– That is, if we can find enough testosterone to even resist by then.

Nobody wants to hear it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Things have been pretty tense around here lately, as I guess you’ve heard.  The bad guys have been throwing stuff at the International Zone for the past week or so.  It’s actually tapered off quite a bit over the last few days, but we’ve still been directed to take a number of precautions, such as (until today) sleeping at our office, which has a more solid roof than our trailers.

As far as what’s been going on, I confess that it’s taken a bit of time before I’ve been confident that I have at least a bit of a handle on things–there’s been a lot of conflicting stories, and to an extent it’s true that when you’re close to the event it’s sometimes harder to see the big picture.  Here what I personally think is going on:

The Shia militias (and Iran) have to a large extent been running Basra and southern Iraq.  The British (whose area of responsibility this was) were generally content to tolerate this, because as long as they(the Brits) left the militias alone there wasn’t much trouble and the British looked good.  It was pretty irritating back in the Summer of 2005, when I was here last, to listen to some of the British in the press lecturing the US Army and Marines about the “proper way” to handle the insurgents since the British casualties were so low.  Pretty much everybody out here knew the score.

With the Brits on the way out, the real situation couldn’t be ignored much longer.  With Sadr’s original “cease fire” having expired, and continuing unrest within the Sadrist ranks, Maliki apparently made the decision to attack them in Basra, without US support.  Whether he did this on behalf of the legitimate Iraqi state to take out an anti-government force, or on behalf of his Shia faction to eliminate a rival faction is a debateable question, but really not very important.  Sadr had to be dealt with in any case.

The Sadrists (and the supporting Iranian force) were established and dug in.  Many of the Iraqi Police had always been of doubtful reliability and it was no surprise that a number of them (along with some Iraqi Army) either didn’t fight or even went to the other side.  Importantly, though, fewer did this than the bad guys were counting on.  While the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) needed US air support and, eventually, ground support, I understand that on the whole they fought well.  there are indications that, in relatively little time, the Sadrists et al had taken significant casualties, were out of bullets, gas and food, and Sadr was forced to negotiate his way out of the mess he was in.  Politics reared it’s ugly head and they have been allowed to do this, even though many Iraqis I’ve talked to think the ISF should just keep going and wipe them out.

During this same time, Sadrist forces went into the streets in the areas of Baghdad they “controlled” (notably Sadr City) and began shelling the International Zone.  It got him some press, but also brought all sorts of trouble down on him in the city.  For a few days his militia was in control of the neighborhoods, but by now the place is flooded with ISF and Coalition forces, something that has really never happened before.  The Surge had involved the ISF and Coalition going through the various districts of Baghdad one by one in a “take and hold” strategy, but for political reasons, this never happened in Sadr City.  Maliki didn’t want to take on Sadr and alienate his Shia supporters.

But Maliki and his government have now done this.  Politics may still prevent him from following up like he should, but a few things seem to have happened– Sadr (and Iran) got beaten in Basra and the south where they were the strongest; Sadr seems to have lost support among all Iraqis who are not themselves Sadrists, which wasn’t the case before; and the government has finally moved against Iran and it’s influence in Basra and the south, as well as in Sadr City.  These are all good things and contribute to the slow but steady movement to (dare I say it?) victory.

Of course, as I’ve always said, we won’t have real victory here as long as Iran is not properly dealt with.  Nobody wants to say it out loud, but it’s the truth nonetheless.  It’s interesting that Gen Petraeus and Amb Crocker have begun to allude to this in their recent testimony.

WEF1 writes:

I’m sure I’m gonna regret this, but I feel obliged to point out that WEF3 misspoke when he said that his dilemma has come about because he wants to follow Catholic Social Teaching. Rather, the problem is his personal beliefs, which aren’t supported by those teachings, at least according to the link he provides . . . Chapter 11, paragraphs 500, 502, and 514 . . . to the extent WEF3 opinion is based on pacifism, it’s not supported by the document he cites.

No, WEF1, I don’t expect you to regret. <Cue Evil . . . rather . . . pacifistic laugh> . . .

I expect you to . . .

Just kidding. Regret will be just fine. :)  But WEF1 makes some fine points.  The Church doesn’t mandate pacifism, for sure.  But paragraphs 496 and 497 of the Compendium of CST seem, to me, to at least make pacifism an option.  I had written something longer, but WEF3.5 thought it was stupid, so off it went into oblivion.  :)  Peace!

I’m sure I’m gonna regret this, but I feel obliged to point out that WEF3 misspoke when he said that his dilemma has come about because he wants to follow Catholic Social Teaching. Rather, the problem is his personal beliefs, which aren’t supported by those teachings, at least according to the link he provides. I’m not knocking those personal beliefs here, just taking issue with his claims regarding Church teaching.

WEF3 doesn’t think there is any legitimate reason to go to war, but that’s not what the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says. Note in particular Chapter 11, paragraphs 500, 502, and 514.

Naturally, people of good will may disagree on whether or not a particular conflict is legitimate, but to the extent WEF3 opinion is based on pacifism, it’s not supported by the document he cites.

So I went to a peace protest too.  It sort of made me a little sick, angry, and frustrated.  Am I really the only normal (okay, semi-normal) person who is against the war?  Then I realized - well, these are the people against the war who refuse to operate in the normal political realm (for whatever reason).  Most people who are against the war will simply vote Democrat in the election, or if they are really fiesty, they might even work on a political campaign, put up some posters, go door-to-door, or whatever people do to get their candidates elected.

The crazies that showed up at the protests yesterday are the people who have no intention of working through the political process.  They would rather block street intersections and stop traffic.  Does stopping traffic actually affect the political situation (which in turn might stop the war)?  Well, they don’t care.  They just want to be against the war.  Whether their actions have any affect on stopping the war is irrelevent.  They are having too much fun to care, too much self-righteous anger to care.  They got what they wanted - getting arrested, making some noise, feeling like they did ’something’, even if it was admittedly counter-productive.

I’m in the strange position of being a Catholic who wants to vote according to Catholic Social Teaching.  I don’t think that Catholics ought to be voting for either a pro-choice or pro-war candidate -i.e., for any of the presidential candidates.  And so I find myself walking along with anarchists and the like, and hating it.

More to come.