the best defense

In my last post I noted that Austin Bay sees an opportunity for Iraq's government to pressure Iran's mullahs into withdrawing their support from the Shia insurgency in Iraq. Michael Ledeen isn't so sanguine:

But dumping responsibility for dealing with Iran in the quivering laps of the Iraqi leaders is precisely the wrong thing to do. We have to lead this war, we have to go after the Iranians. Otherwise, surge or no surge, fifty or a hundred thousand troops more or less, we’re gonna lose. Because the peoples of the Mideast, who have seen many armies come and go over the centuries, are going to throw in with the likely winners. And we can’t win if we refuse to engage the main enemy, which is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Neither is Omar Fadhil:

If the way forward requires maintaining the basic course of the political process and empowering (and cleaning) the current government and its head then the only way to do this is to relieve Mr. Maliki, his party and the rest of the Shia alliance from the dominance and influence of Sadr, and there are two ways to accomplish this: either persuade Mr. Maliki and his team and promise them great support and protection from Sadr's reach, or deal a lethal blow to Sadr and his militia in order to render him unable to inflict harm on Mr. Maliki and other members of the United Iraqi Alliance.

Now really, it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out that the first way isn't working out right, what's needed now is to take the decision to try the second way and deal with the biggest threat to stability in Iraq in the way we should.

Given that Sadr is supported by Iran, we might not be able to shut down the former without crippling the latter. Given that Bush isn't exactly operating from a position of political power, he may not opt to take any drastic measures. If he doesn't, I believe Iraq will be very messy for a very long time.

mad mullahs

The NY Times is reporting that American troops have captured Iranian agents in Baghdad who are responsible for organizing attacks in Iraq:

The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”

If this is true, we now have solid proof that the Iranian government is actively fighting a war against the U.S. and against Iraq. Granted, this news isn't exactly new--we've been hearing about Iranian interference in Iraq for the better part of two years now--but it *is* the kind of smoking-gun evidence that Iran will not be able to deny. Austin Bay sees an opportunity:

But this is also an opportunity. The Times article points out that the Iraqis have been complaining for years about Iranian troublemaking in Iraq. (The Iraqis also complain about Syrian troublemaking.) The UN Security — once again– called for sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. As weak as UN sanctions are, they still represent a strategic political problem from Iran. Ahmadinejad’s government was rattled by recent local elections in Iran. Iranian students and other domestic opponents are restive. And now the US has “tactical” evidence of direct Iranian support for attacks on Iraqi forces inside Iraq.

The possibility exists that the Iraqis could play good cop-bad cop with the Iranians. Here’s the Iraqi diplomatic pitch: “You’ve been caught red-handed. Better to deal with us in Baghdad than with the big bad US and its Air Force.”

What might a deal look like? Hard to say, but it should entail Iran giving up its support for Shia militias.

I'd like to believe that the Iranian regime can be convinced to retreat from Iraq, but I'm not so certain. The Iranian government is a puppet of Iran's mullahs whom aren't necessarily students of realist foreign policy. They came into power when their radical followers stormed the American embassy in 1979, but Iran never paid a price for the crime. Iranian supported Hezbollah is probably responsible for the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, but Iran never paid a price for the crime. Iran is probably responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, but they never paid a price for the crime. Iran has been supporting Shia insurgents in Iraq since 2004, but they've never paid a price. Iranian supported Hezbollah was again responsible for initiating war with Israel in 2006, but Iran never paid a price. After decades of belligerent behavior that have gone unpunished, Iran's mullahs might be feeling untouchable. It may take more than sabre-rattling to convince them to back down.

the wild self

Alex Tabarrok, on gift giving:

Someone gives you $100 cash. You go out to the store and buy a set of car tires. Purchasing the tires clearly maximizes your utility. Now imagine that instead of $100 the gift giver gave you a set of car tires. Would you be happy that they know you so well that they purchased for you just what you would have purchased for yourself? I don't think so.

The example illustrates that we want the gift giver to buy something for us that we would not have bought for ourselves. Or more precisely one of our selves wants this - the self that is usually restrained, squashed, and limited, the wild self, the passionate self, the romantic self.

Gift giving, therefore, is about reaching out and giving to the wild self in someone else. Why would we want to do this? Because we want the wild self in someone else to be wild about us.

I concur.

forgive me

Before reading any further, you need to remove all sharp objects from your immediate vicinity; I'd hate to find out that you put a pencil through your eardrum on my account.

Courtesy of Pajamas Media, I give you The Worst Xmas Song Ever. Don't give up after the first few seconds. It gets so much worse. So, so much worse.

"Together" -- Rudyard Kipling

I ran across this poem yesterday when I was flipping through a book of Kipling's poetry at Barnes & Noble. I'll let it speak for itself:

“Together”
(ENGLAND AT WAR)
Rudyard Kipling

WHEN Horse and Rider each can trust the other everywhere,
It takes a fence and more than a fence to pound that happy pair;
For the one will do what the other demands, although he is beaten and blown,
And when it is done, they can live through a run that neither could face alone.

When Crew and Captain understand each other to the core,
It takes a gale and more than a gale to put their ship ashore;
For the one will do what the other commands, although they are chilled to the bone,
And both together can live through weather that neither could face alone.

When King and People understand each other past a doubt,
It takes a foe and more than a foe to knock that country out;
For the one will do what the other requires as soon as the need is shown,
And hand in hand they can make a stand which neither could make alone!

This wisdom had Elizabeth and all her subjects too,
For she was theirs and they were hers, as well the Spaniard knew;
For when his grim Armada came to conquer the Nation and Throne,
Why, back to back they met an attack that neither could face alone!

It is not wealth nor talk nor trade nor schools nor even the Vote,
Will save your land when the enemy’s hand is tightening round your throat.
But a King and a People who thoroughly trust each other in all that is done
Can sleep on their bed without any dread—for the world will leave ’em alone!

I need to read more Kipling.

them long words are hard

Last night at the KC Chiefs fantasy camp event I sat through a 15 minute Q-and-A session with one of the PR reps for the KC Chiefs. I about fell out of my chair when he described all of the back-office administration activities: "You really don't see it, but there's always something matriculating behind the scenes". Oh the irony...

Yeah, yeah, I use words out of context all the time. It's still funny, though.

blogging the bible

David Plotz of Slate is blogging the Bible. Reading it from beginning to end, offering commentary as he goes:

My goal is pretty simple. I want to find out what happens when an ignorant person actually reads the book on which his religion is based. I think I'm in the same position as many other lazy but faithful people (Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus). I love Judaism; I love (most of) the lessons it has taught me about how to live in the world; and yet I realized I am fundamentally ignorant about its foundation, its essential document. So, what will happen if I approach my Bible empty, unmediated by teachers or rabbis or parents? What will delight and horrify me? How will the Bible relate to the religion I practice, and the lessons I thought I learned in synagogue and Hebrew School?

It's interesting reading, largely because his reaction to what he finds is so unbiased by traditional interpretation. He doesn't exactly stick to theology, either. For example:

The first thing I'm noticing about the Book of Judges is that there don't appear to be any judges in it. Sure, they may be called "judges," but they're really generals, left-handed assassins, female guerillas, polygamist warriors, fratricidal maniacs, and holy child killers. No judging seems to occur in Judges—unless your idea of justice is Judge Dredd. But if you want good stories—this is the book to read. It's an adrenaline shot!

Also:

Didn't someone write a book on the biblical roots of capitalism and free enterprise? How did he handle this episode? Our hero Joseph abolishes private property, turns freeholders into serfs, and transforms a decentralized farm economy into a command-economy dictatorship. This is bad economics and worse public policy. This is China, 1949. Joseph is Chairman Mao. (And, to speculate a little bit, perhaps this centralized dictatorship established by Joseph is what ultimately led to the Israelites enslavement in Egypt. Once you create a voracious state apparatus, it must be fed. Is it a surprise that slavery became part of its diet? In a less totalitarian state, perhaps slavery wouldn't have been as necessary or as feasible. This digression has been brought to you by the American Enterprise Institute.)

assassination as a tool of the state

Austin Bay has posted some thoughts regarding the apparent murder of Alexander Litvinenko, and what it means about Putin's Russia. Quoting a Time Magazine article:

Meanwhile, there is the light–uncomfortably glaring–that the case sheds on modern Russia. Vladimir Ryzhkov, one of the few independent liberals left in the Duma, says, “The point is not whether Putin is responsible for these concrete murders. The point is that he is responsible for having created a system that is ruled by fear and violence.” Ryzhkov claims that the armed forces, Interior Ministry, FSB and those who have retired from them to join private security services “are running this country, own its economy and use violence and murder as habitual management techniques.” A U.S. businessman in Moscow seconds the argument. “While you in the press are obsessed by Politkovskaya and Litvinenko, you’ve missed that half a dozen major oil executives and another half-dozen major bankers have been murdered in the last few months.”

It seems clear that Putin is either using or condoning assassination and murder as a tool of the state. Assad's Syria has apparently also taken up the practice of state sponsored assassination, as evidenced by the killings of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel. On the other hand, the U.S. and Israel have both engaged in the practice, assassinating al-Qaeda and Hamas leaders on occasion. In the case of Russia and Syria, I'm 100% opposed to the assassinations that have occurred. In the case of the U.S. and Israel, I think there's a moral case to be made that supports the use of assassination as a tool of the state. But I'm not certain. Here are the key differences that I see between the "good" and "bad" assassinations:

• Russian and Syrian targets have included politicians and journalists that have been critical of Russia and Syria. None of their targets have been involved in any kind of violent aggression. None have been implicated in any significant crimes--Litvenko may well have been involved in some shady business (he came out of Russia's intelligence services, after all), but Russia hasn't made any allegations of criminal activity on his part.
  
• U.S. and Israeli targets have been leaders in organizations that are engaged in violent aggression against the U.S. and Israel. These targets have been personally implicated in violent criminal activity and would be subject to legal action if only the state could get its hands on them. These targets have been seeking refuge among populations that are not willing to cooperate in bringing them to justice.

In other words, the U.S. and Israel have been using assassination as a tool when it is the only realistic mechanism for bringing a violent opponent to justice. Russia and Syria have been using assassination as a tool when it is a convenient method for silencing an inconvenient critic or political opponent. I don't think I'm splitting hairs to suggest that U.S. and Israeli assassination policies seem to be legitimate cases of a state exercising its God-given authority to use force to punish evil:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Romans 13:1-4

Or am I missing something?

my speed-reader is broke

I read pretty fast compared to most people. Probably about a page a minute for normal fiction. My definition of "normal fiction" is made up of a completely abstract combination of variables such as page size, font size, writing style, complexity of plot and general likability of the book, none of which is very well defined in my mind. I just know that when I'm reading "normal fiction", I tend to read about a page a minute. Which is a whole lot slower than some people:

I read fast. Really fast. I read about six paperback pages a minute, give or take.

Her secret is to skip things. I think I do a fair amount of skipping as well, but probably not nearly as much as she does. Anyway, that's not my point. I was reading the comments below her post about speed reading when I came across this statement:

In my limited anecdotal research, I have found the reason why some people read so fast and others cannot is that the latter learned how to read by actually "speaking" the words to what they are reading in their minds, as if they were reading out loud. Those who can read very fast uncoupled that need to "speak" the words in their minds to comprehend what they are reading.

I was stunned to discover that simply reading his hypothesis caused me to start sounding out words in my mind, which momentarily crippled my ability to read quickly. It was frightening. I can't imagine living in a world where general reading requires effort. Yes, some study reading will always require concerted effort to comprehend, but in general I expect words to leap naturally off the page and into my head without any conscious effort on my part.

Now, if my speed-reader has recovered, I'm going to go finish reading The Last Templar. It's in no danger of becoming one of my favorite books of all time. But then, it's a book about modern conspiracies related to the Templar Knights, and I'm not sure that there's ever been a book on the topic that was *really* good, as opposed to just being readable.

a rose by any other name would smell as sweat

I now own a football jersey that has been autographed by Casey Wiegmann and Derrick Johnson, smells of sweat and has my manager's name on the back.

My manager told me yesterday that one of our vendors had reserved a spot for him at a Kansas City Chiefs fantasy camp. He was busy tonight, so I got to go in his stead. We toured the stadium, received personalized jerseys (not Chiefs jerseys, unfortunately), played a 30 minute scrimmage at their practice facility (Wiegmann and Johnson were the coaches), ate some pizza and generally had a blast. I caught a touchdown and also scored on a 2-point conversion. Pretty cool.

The coolest thing has to be the jersey. I mean, anybody can get a cheap jersey autographed by a couple of athletes, but how many have a cheap jersey autographed by a couple of athletes, but the jersey has their manager's name on the back? I'm going to have to start wearing it to work every Friday. I'll make him call me "Schmieder".