February 28, 2003

NOTE TO PROTESTERS: YOU CAN

NOTE TO PROTESTERS: YOU CAN GO HOME NOW. WE'RE NOT INVOLVED. SO SHUT UP. THANK YOU.

"What I am saying is that, having made a substantial commitment to Afghanistan, we will not be in a position to send substantial ground troops for a year or more to any other country," [Defence Minister John] McCallum said following a speech to the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA). "This does not rule out a possible participation in Iraq should there be a war, and should the government wish to do so, but not through ground troops."
--National Post, today

Posted by BruceR at 01:42 PM

February 27, 2003

I'D SAY I'M FADING INTO

I'D SAY I'M FADING INTO THE SCENERY BETTER NOW, BUT, OF COURSE, THERE'S THREE FEET OF SNOW OUTSIDE

Having become unofficially the last Canadian army member to be issued the new combat uniforms, the supply chain finally closed the gap in my case on Tuesday. First impressions: huge improvement over what they replace... better quality fabric, better cut, and camouflaged of course, while still keeping all the features I would have missed. Only major problem I've heard reported so far (other than the ongoing supply limitations, no doubt due in part to stronger restrictions this time on any civilian production or purchase of Canadian disruptive pattern fabric) is that there's been zero recognition thus far for the "new army look" among the Canadian public. As a result, soldiers have actually been ordered to wear red-and-white Canadian flag shoulder flashes in garrison so people know what army they belong to. :-) I also personally find the new camo rank badges hard to make out, sometimes... I'd have thought it would have made more sense to keep the old rank slip-ons we had for office use, and only switch to the camo ones in the field. The old rank badges are just going in the trash anyway, so why not... oh, well, if the generals don't mind the missed salutes in the halls, who am I to complain?

Little known factoid: Never denied but widely believed is that the CADPAT camo pattern (used in different colours by the Marine Corps as Marpat) is actually made up of a whole bunch of superimposed maple leafs.

Posted by BruceR at 12:12 AM

February 25, 2003

BY JOVE, HE'S GOT IT

BY JOVE, HE'S GOT IT

On the other side of the problem, the negotiations with Turkey continue to be a tangled mess, and it has finally dawned on me what I now think is the real point of them. I think that the reason we want a large contingent of troops in Turkey for a northern attack is so that our troops can then occupy Kurdistan and prevent Turkey from doing so.
--The light dawns on Steven Den Beste, only 5 days after yours truly figured it out.

Posted by BruceR at 09:31 PM

NOW COLLECTING FUNDS TO GET

NOW COLLECTING FUNDS TO GET IRAQ SOME REAL ANTHRAX, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

One William Hutton, of Winnipeg, writes the Globe and Mail to offer his novel view of the world, leaving us to ask the question once again, "Why are all the nutbars from Manitoba?"

Weapons inspector Hans Blix has finally sold out to the Americans. He demands that Iraq destroy 50 Al-Samoud 2 missiles, its best defence against the American invaders, because they slightly exceed the 150-kilometre limit. It is unreasonable to expect the Iraqis to comply when it is obvious that the Americans will attack regardless of Mr. Blix's report. Mr. Blix enables the United States to gain UN support for its aggression.

Of course, as I'm sure Mr. Hutton is aware, those weapons are only useful if they have a chemical or biological warhead on them. Plus, they're ILLEGAL. Presumably, if Mr.Blix had found several vats of weaponized smallpox, Mr. Hutton would oppose their destruction on the same grounds.

Mr. Hutton, it should be noted, also supported the Serbs in the defense of their homeland against the vicious armies of NATO, including Canada's. He supported the New Democratic Party's New Politics Initiative, believed the Serbian massacres at Srebrenica were fictional, and vigorously opposes downtown hockey arenas.

What's the internet equivalent of backing away slowly?

Posted by BruceR at 04:41 PM

February 24, 2003

WHY DO THEY HATE US? NO CLUE...

Possibly the first in a series... here's today's haul:

"F*ck 'em all and let the tanks roll." -- Steven Den Beste

"I guess they [the Kurds] have the common decency to keep their tablecloths on their dining room tables instead of wearing them on their heads in the shape of historic Kurdistan." -- Lawrence Simon, on William Quick's site.

Maybe Charles Johnson should turn his constant search for expressions of irrational race-hatred to the American Wahhabi bloggers once in a while, too. It's getting kind of caustic in here lately.

(PS: Hey, Quick: In case you didn't know, I take care of this newfangled internet dingus for Canada's largest university. I doubt you could truly IP-ban me without also banning a good swath of Toronto as well. But feel free to keep trying, though... it wouldn't exactly be Toronto's loss if you did, would it?)

Posted by BruceR at 10:27 PM

February 21, 2003

BIG BABY Showing the kind

BIG BABY

Showing the kind of intellectual maturity one normally expects of cryptofascists, one William Quick thinks he's IP-banned me from accessing his website. Boo hoo. He hasn't had anything important or useful to say for months anyway; I have to confess I've only tuned in regularly to enjoy his slow-motion aneurysm over what he clearly sees as a progressively worsening American foreign policy failure. Can't say I'll miss that.

Still, it shows you exactly how much faith members of the American far right like yon William put in the founding principles of their nation, unless it's the Second Amendment itself... at least Paine, Jefferson et al could both take it AND dish it out, but the tendency of these self-identified true American patriots to withdraw into a bubble safe from any intrusion of actual reality or contrary viewpoint is pronounced.

Posted by BruceR at 10:15 PM

THEIR PUBLIC-APPEARANCES ANDROID APPEARS TO

THEIR PUBLIC-APPEARANCES ANDROID APPEARS TO BE MALFUNCTIONING AGAIN

Canada has clearly stated at the beginning of this crisis in the summer, and I repeated that to [U.S.] President George W. Bush, that we Canadians are going to war only, only under the umbrella of the United Nations. So there has been no confusion, I explained that clearly.

--Prime Minister Jean Chretien, speaking to a child earlier today

The Prime Minister's Office later said that [the robot] Mr. Chrétien was stating a general principle and that the government is "keeping the options open."

-The Globe and Mail

Posted by BruceR at 06:06 PM

February 20, 2003

GOOD PIECE, THIS Peter Beinart's

GOOD PIECE, THIS

Peter Beinart's take on Iraqi reconstruction, and the likely destruction of the Wilsonian ideal that will result from failing to do it right. The Kausian nut quote:

Indeed, the best-case scenario is that the Bush team is misleading the American people about the intensive political effort they have in mind once Saddam is gone. The worst-case scenario is that no such effort is even planned and that, in the name of stability, Riyadh and Foggy Bottom will settle on an Iraqi Pervez Musharaf. It is not a good sign, as Janine Zacharia recently reported in these pages that the closer we get to war, the more despondent the genuine Iraqi democrats sound.

The unhappy truth is that, if the Bush administration wins the war but betrays the peace, the political consequences for the president will be small. Once the fighting is over, the American press will turn its attention elsewhere, just as it has in post-Taliban Afghanistan... Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney won't lose sleep if Chevron and Crown Prince Abdullah run things in post-Saddam Baghdad rather than Kanan Makiya. Paul Wolfowitz will either shut up or resign.

Posted by BruceR at 03:49 PM

OTHER THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

OTHER THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Click here.

Posted by BruceR at 10:03 AM

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Okay,

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Okay, here's another way of looking at the conflicting news from Turkey. The U.S. is still steadfastly pursuing a "second northern front" option... far beyond what its actual strategic utility would seem to require. Is that because they fear that if American ground forces aren't there with the Turks, then the Turks will just move in on their own? (Making the Newsweek piece today basically a trial balloon to see how the idea of doing a Molotov-Ribbentrop with Ankara and abandoning the Kurds floats with the commentariat?)

Turkey's game then may well be... "give us all that money we demanded, and we'll consent to a joint invasion of the no-fly zone from Turkish soil, and once the war is over we'll get out of your hair. Or, plan B, you don't give us the new bribe, send all your troops to Kuwait instead, and while you're busy down in the south we may just take the northern no-fly ourselves as insurance, to be redeemed later at a price we determine." Either way, they a big winna.

Posted by BruceR at 09:54 AM

February 19, 2003

SPOKE TOO SOON Jim Henley's

SPOKE TOO SOON

Jim Henley's all over the coming betrayal of the nascent Kurdish democracy today. The evidence is growing that America didn't even wait for the war before it let the Turks start killing them.

Last August, a spokesman... for the Kurdish Democratic Party told Agence France-Presse that in one such [Turkish air] raid, 38 Kurdish civilians were killed and 11 wounded.

Posted by BruceR at 11:14 PM

YALTA COMES TO MIND FOR

YALTA COMES TO MIND FOR SOME REASON

The paucity of real allies, and the inability to do a real reconstruction with just their own troops, are leading America to some strange and disturbing concessions.

If Newsweek is to be trusted, we're now looking at a U.S.-Anglo-Turkish invasion as the most likely scenario, with Turkey getting what is now the northern no-fly zone as their danegeld and trusteeship, independent of any joint command... kind of like the partition of Germany in 1945 (or, less appropriately perhaps, Poland six years earlier). This is, unfortunately, another side effect of bashing international institutions... their auspices can also be used to control YOUR allies. A UN- or NATO-sanctioned Turkish army could at most have hoped to set up a UN trusteeship in the end... but if all we have is a "coalition of the willing," then any greediness is possible so long as the coalition holds.

What this means for the Kurds is, of course, too horrible to dwell on. And it would render my earlier estimate that they would rise up in 2-3 years seem rather... optimistic. It would allow the US and Britain to properly reconstruct the south of the country with the forces they have... although how you stitch the warring north of the country together with the pacified south at the end of that is a rather open question, to put it mildly.

Posted by BruceR at 01:39 PM

WHY AMERICANS MAKE FOR POOR

WHY AMERICANS MAKE FOR POOR OCCUPIERS

I am in Jim Henley's debt for this linkage: a good Nation essay summarizing the current infighting in the American military. It touches on something that Canadian soldiers have noted for some time:

"If anything," the officer continues, "the [Bosnian] locals in areas under US control viewed the GIs as imperial occupiers, whereas in other areas, under Dutch or Canadian control, they saw them more as helpers who just happened to be heavily armed."

Everyone with a foot in the peacekeeping game is aware of this tendency. Is it because American soldiers are jerks? No, of course not. As the article rightly alludes to, the force protection burden for any main-force American contingent abroad is so high they often can't effectively relate with the surrounding population. It's like the difference people have noted between patrolcar policing and "community policing" in a way.

Could Americans change their approach? Not effectively... the political value of a single American peacekeeper's life, to a terrorist or enemy sympathizer wishing to kill or capture them, is so much higher than, say, a Canadian or Indian counterpart, that a high level of force protection, and a greater degree of distance, is pretty much necessary. Americans are high-value targets just by being in the zone. In Bosnia during the UN days, some Canadian peacekeepers were held hostage by Serbs: whatever the Serbs hoped to accomplish by this was no doubt negated by the complete lack of any international response. At most such an action can restrain the moves of the forces in-theatre, but it certainly has no larger political ramifications. Contrast that to Mogadishu, where a few American casualties meant the whole Somalia picture drastically altered overnight.

This, more than anything else, is likely going to hamper Iraqi reconstruction. However it's done, the result is going to be a large number of American troops, for the first time in decades within easy reach, Daniel Pearl-range reach, of those who hate them, and forced to stay there by virtue of their need to reconstruct the country. I've said before it's only a matter of time (two years? three?) before we see Americans or American proxies putting down rebellious Kurdish and Shiite factions in a post-war Iraq. Add the inevitable terrorist strikes on vulnerable peacekeeping elements in the meantime, and we could well see a sustained "Wild West time."

Which brings us to the occupation force, again. How many troops do the Americans need? As I've said before, historically the ratio for successful military occupations has run a scale from 1 soldier per 1,000 population (Japan and Germany in 1945) to 1:100 (Ireland, Palestine). Because it's largely going to be high-value American targets doing it, attracting terrorists, because the bordering nations are hostile to the enterprise, and because the nation itself is so fractious, it's clearly going to be on the low end of that scale. But let's say 1:500 to be generous. Iraq has 25 million people. So we're talking 50,000 soldiers minimum. Currently. America can sustain about 200,000 ground troops overseas longterm. Subtract Korea and other necessary garrisons, and we're talking maybe 100,000 free for the Middle East, of which half will be locked up in Iraq. You can't do much with the other 50,000. That could mean this isn't the first step in the war on terrorism... until Iraq is "reconstructed" it could be the last.

Okay, so America does have a couple options. It could use mercenaries, as is already being bandied about in military circles. Then the Hessians will have come full circle. Or it can build up Iraq's army as a force multiplier, and start drawing down its own numbers to give it freedom to move elsewhere. The spectacular successes of the ARVN come to mind in this respect.

America has a third option, of course. Get the world behind it. Britain could do maybe up to 10,000 sustained, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland ditto, Turkey too even -- if their troops are put in the SOUTH of the country -- and suddenly you've got an occupation force that: isn't a particularly tempting terrorist target, so it can restructure Iraq faster and more effectively; frees up enough Americans for phase two, whatever that is, or even to take on the Koreans; and avoids overreliance on Iraqis or mercs, which will only eat away at the new country from within.

There would still be American leadership of course, an American administrator, American money for the most part... still at least a division's worth of American troops on the ground, but maybe 20,000 tops (civil affairs and special forces in the streets, and a strong quick reaction force kept in a well-protected sanctum to back all the peacekeepers up). The outcome could be a functioning, grateful country in three years, at which point the West could start drawing down.

That's the best-case scenario, sure. All kinds of stuff can happen. But it's worth shooting for. And maybe if waiting a couple months will bring a couple other nations with strong militaries on board to help with the reconstruction, maybe it's worth the wait. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure I'm fully with Robert Wright, and his belief in the need for TWO more U.N. resolutions before war; but if the choice is between rushed and wrong, and reasoned and right, then I'd say wait for fall if you had to.

The counter to that, of course, one I've read frequently elsewhere, is once the other countries have seen the U.S. has done all the heavy warfighting, they'll jump at the chance to put boots on the ground as peacekeepers. To which I'd say, um, look at Afghanistan, where there's been two years of constant scratching and biting just to get a brigade's worth of good troops in Kabul. Add to that the prospect of serving under American command, which will rankle all the more, and many will stay home altogether. The only alternative to straight-out American command, of course, remains U.S. authority under the auspices of a well-respected international body, like NATO or the Security Council. But for that to be an option, someone would have to put a muzzle on Mr. Rumsfeld...

UPDATE: Angua comments. I'm not sure I'd classify this as an "anti-war" argument, as I think on the balance, I'm still a borderline "pro" on the whole issue. I just don't see great prospects of post-war success if both NATO and the UN end up getting bypassed along the way... so maybe it's better seen as an "anti-unilateral" argument.

Posted by BruceR at 01:14 PM

February 18, 2003

NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, REALLY,

NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, REALLY, BUT ONE NOTE OF CAUTION

Credit where credit is due: the new Canadian budget came out, and the Federal government more than made up for not increasing defence spending after Sept. 11. The new funding is welcome: it almost certainly means the restructuring of the Canadian reserves into a much more useful organization that has been in the works for some time will go ahead, giving the army in particular much more flexibility in its domestic and foreign response to threats. This is all good.

What the papers won't tell you, of course, is that while this solves the operating budget woes for at least the next year (still not enough for major new equipment spending, though), it doesn't necessarily help the Canadian Forces all the way out of the hole. (And it's still less than the Forces got 10 years ago.) Now it's not going to be a question of funds: now it's the shortage in trained manpower. It's fair to say every trained soldier in the country who isn't nailed down is going to be involved in the deployments to Afghanistan and Bosnia in the next year... every last able and willing reservist included. That means, though, that there's no one left at home to train any new soldiers. And it takes three years, minimum, to get a soldier up to where they can train others; meanwhile attrition is always eating away. In order to meet short-term need, the army will have to sacrifice long-term maintenance of troop levels... troops that are already scarce on the ground.

By hook or by crook, if the funding keeps pace with inflation for the next three years, by the end of that time the army can probably get back to having the capability to deploy a full light infantry brigade or its equivalent overseas at one time again, for 1-2 year periods, anyway. That itself would be a massive improvement. But it's not going to happen overnight. No one should think this makes any difference on the question of a Canadian Iraq deployment of ground troops, for instance.

Posted by BruceR at 09:44 PM

AFGHANISTAN TO AND FRO The

AFGHANISTAN TO AND FRO

The question of whether the White House forgot about Afghanistan, referred to 2 posts below, continues to spark debate. Reader James M. writes, in an email:

Enjoy reading your site from time to time and think you are far more often right than wrong. I do believe, however, that Marshall got things wrong on Afghanistan and the budget. Here are two posts on the point... I think Marshall simply didn't think long enough to realize that (1)It was completely implausible that there was no aid for Afghanistan in the budget, and (2)Aid for Afghanistan might not be in a line item with that name. He hasn't corrected it, though I am sure some one must have mentioned these facts to him.

Okay, first thing's first. This story didn't start with Josh Marshall, the blogger. It started with a statement by Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona), chairman of the Congressional Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, which overseas U.S. foreign aid. This is the BBC version of the story.

Okay, so we've established Kolbe is a) the expert in Congress; b) a Republican. If he'd like to retract or clarify his statements, which he is utterly free to do, then he can; in the meantime Marshall is utterly right to stick by his story. The Congressional appropriations committee budget press release says exactly the same thing, btw.

Whence the confusion? The question is specifically whether the government asked Congress to budget for humanitarian aid (not any other kind of aid) for the FY03 budget (which runs from Oct. 1, 2002 to Oct. 1, 2003). The answer on that very narrow question, pretty clearly, is no. There is no doubt, either, that Congressional Republicans quickly made sure that aid was provided regardless, and that USAID was already spending their money, anyway (around $136 million in the first four months of this fiscal year). No Afghans were harmed in the making of this budget... yet.

However, Marshall's own point, that it speaks to a certain... distraction in the U.S. administration over the last several months, remains unchallenged. The alternate theory, that Republican congressmen are lying all over the place for some incomprehensible reason, certainly does not hold water.

Posted by BruceR at 02:10 PM

February 15, 2003

ACTUALLY, AN INCREDIBLY TYPICAL THING

ACTUALLY, AN INCREDIBLY TYPICAL THING FOR CANADIANS TO DO

The Canadian position on Iraq (send the army to Afghanistan) may seem dodgy, but it's worthwhile remembering this is exactly how Canada backed into both world wars, more or less, as well, by offering to take on another task elsewhere in the world, rather than contribute troops directly to the hegemonic power's (in those cases, Britain's) armies. In 1914, Prime Minister Laurier (a Liberal) sent the entire regular Canadian army, pretty much (ie, the Royal Canadian Regiment), to take over the Bermuda garrison, so the British regiment there could head to Flanders. Massive popular support for war among English Canadians after things started to go south for the Brits forced national mobilization anyway, but it was a good try.

Then in 1941, Laurier's successor King (a Liberal), among other dodges like the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, committed two Canadian battalions to Hong Kong, again to take over for British troops, and in part to reduce the pressure to send more Canadians to Europe. The fact that those troops were unwittingly massacred that December can be seen as largely a matter of bad timing.

But if one wants to really look at an interesting historical parallel, the corker is still 1956. It seems hard now to imagine a world where a strongly interventionist Britain and France, closely allied with Israel, could launch a pre-emptive strike on the Middle East's worst dictator, but be forced back by American refusal to tolerate the European recolonization of the region or Western favoritism for the Zionist enterprise. The mind boggles. But anyway, here's the corker. By carefully triangulating off of both sides, offering only passive support for everybody's aims, Canada, led by foreign minister Lester Pearson, was able to remain inoffensive enough to everybody involved so that we alone could insert a stabilization force to bulwark a fragile ceasefire, thereby avoiding a major NATO schism, and rejuvenate the UN (by inventing "peacekeeping") all in one sweep. Of course, it also got Pearson the Nobel, and remains the epitome of successful Canadian foreign policy.

Remember, Chretien literally studied at Pearson's knee when he first came to Ottawa. And he's clearly falling back on that Pearsonism now, playing Europe and the States off each other and keeping out until someone who can still talk to both sides is needed again. Hey, it worked spectacularly for his mentor once before, so it's reasonable for him to believe it's worth a shot again. Sending the army to Afghanistan is a part of this too, as it helps both Europe (the Germans are looking to pull out) and the Americans (a year's stability in Kabul would still be a blessing). Someone's actually giving the P.M. some pretty good foreign affairs advice for the moment, it seems. Given Canadian support for war is well below 20 per cent, it's his only sane political response, domestically, too.

What it does do, though, is knock Canada effectively out of plans not just for military victory (that was never in the cards) but military reconstruction in Iraq, too, at least until early 2005, assuming there's not any Bosnian pullout before then. Given the uncertainties around reconstruction I've been alluding too, this seems quite sound at this point, as well.

UPDATE: The Flitters wogs remind me that, of course, Borden, the conservative, was in power in 1914. Shame on me.

Posted by BruceR at 12:58 AM

February 14, 2003

MEANWHILE, BACK ON THE SCENE

MEANWHILE, BACK ON THE SCENE OF THE LAST MARSHALLITE RECONSTRUCTION...

Apparently when the budgeteers on the Hill started working their way through the president's new budget they discovered there was no money, not even a line item, for humanitarian or reconstruction funds for Afghanistan.
--Josh Marshall, today

Posted by BruceR at 10:26 AM

QUOTE OF THE WEEK Canadians

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Canadians will know Voivod as "that band from Quebec you hear on MuchMusic sometimes, the ones who sound like a big crate of plugged-in electric instruments being pitched down five flights of stairs."
--Colby Cosh. Hey, wait a minute, I like Voivod! They're... they're... okay, yeah, well, that does pretty much describe how they sound, but... but... but, well, you suck, Colby!

Posted by BruceR at 10:21 AM

February 12, 2003

BACK TO AFGHANISTAN Kabul this

BACK TO AFGHANISTAN

Kabul this time, not Kandahar. Yes, it is a rather odd time to send all your readily available soldiers on a traditional UN peacekeeping mission, but not if you want to keep the Americans from asking to borrow them for something else, I suppose. We're certainly not taking any weight off the Americans with this new deployment, either: it doesn't help them a bit. What it does show is this government's determination to stick with the UN ideal right to the end, regardless. Considering what a large role Canadians have had in creating and sustaining that organization, that does make a certain degree of rational sense. But this is definitely going to eat into any budget increase that might have otherwise have been coming to the army next week. Still, I'm sure we'll do some good over there.

Posted by BruceR at 05:04 PM

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU,

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT THIS MAN'S EYEBROWS SCARE THE HELL OUT OF ME

scary eyebrow man
NATO spokesman Yves Brodeur. It's hard to believe they found someone to serve as their senior flack who is even funnier looking than Jamie Shea. What, was the bearded lady unavailable, so they had to go with the Caterpillar Eyebrow Man?

Posted by BruceR at 04:45 PM

February 11, 2003

WELL, ON THE UPSIDE, AT

WELL, ON THE UPSIDE, AT LEAST THE DEATH TOLL'S DROPPING

Fourteen pilgrims were trampled to death Tuesday when some worshippers taking part in the annual haj pilgrimage tripped during a ritual in which crowds of Muslim faithful throw stones at three pillars representing the Devil's temptations... In 2001, 35 people died in a stampede during the devil-stoning ritual. In 1998, 180 died performing the same ritual.
-Globeandmail.com

Posted by BruceR at 04:33 PM

FACE IT, FOLKS We're just

FACE IT, FOLKS

We're just not serious about terrorism.

(It should be added that, if you ever wondered what the alternative was to an invasion of Afghanistan in the case of Sept. 11, this was it. Just like the earlier Lockerbie trial, millions of dollars spent, and no justice.)

Posted by BruceR at 04:23 PM

February 10, 2003

REASON NO. 263 WHY I

REASON NO. 263 WHY I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN A U.S.-LED IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION

"In addition to being the point man for "Free Iraqis," [Zalmay] Khalilzad is also the White House's envoy to Afghanistan and the person charged with the Iran portfolio... When he's in Afghanistan, who is handling Iraq?" asks one Defense Department official. "And, when he's dealing with Iraq, who is dealing with Afghanistan? In between you have riots in Iran, and who is dealing with that?"

--The New Republic, today.

Posted by BruceR at 02:21 PM

CIVIL WAR CAVALRY CHARGES In

CIVIL WAR CAVALRY CHARGES

In case anyone's wondering, I'm running the basic course for new officers for Toronto army reserve units. It does eat up the time.

My absence is not letting me take up some interesting recent threads, but one cannot pass without comment: once again, the venerable Den Beste:

If anyone ever attempted a cavalry charge against infantry on the battlefield in the Civil War, I've never heard of it.

Okay, this isn't an exhaustive list, but here's a couple that come to mind:

1) The regimental charge that restored the Union line and saved McClellan's army at Gaines' Mill. Not big enough? How about:
2) The brigade-level charge at Opequon Creek, which ended the war in the Shenandoah Valley? And surely Den Beste must have heard of:
3) The charges by the cavalry brigades on either end of the Union line at Gettysburg, that played a major role in the fighting of the third day.

Yes, cavalry charges were rare. Yes, they were more costly in terms of lives than in past wars, and the proportion of cavalry to infantry in modern armies was in the decline even before the civil war. And yes, they were often a last resort (Den Beste might want to look up the cavalry charge that covered the retreat of the Austrian army at Sadowa, in 1866.). But charges by mounted cavalry in large formations were not only a factor in Civil War battles, but in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War (although by that time the cost to the cavalry units was becoming prohibitive). And of course Den Beste will know about the successful use of mounted cavalry by Allenby and Lawrence against the Turks in World War One, with the charge by an Australian mounted brigade against prepared positions at Beersheba forming a large part of that country's national military myth (and the subject of the famous Aussie war movie The Light Horsemen).

Anything after the infantry were widely equipped with breechloaders is a statistical outlier, of course: regardless of the outcome, you'd still lose your cavalry unit in the attempt. And Den Beste's larger point about armoured fighting vehicles is one I have referred in the past on this site, as well. But the historical cut off for successful cavalry shock action by a modern army is somewhere after 1865, not before.

Posted by BruceR at 10:27 AM

February 07, 2003

THOUGHT TO PONDER Total American

THOUGHT TO PONDER

Total American dollars paid by the U.S for Iraqi crude oil yesterday: $50 million.
Total the day before: $50 million
And the day before that: $50 million...

Posted by BruceR at 01:28 AM

HIGHLIGHT OF THE NIGHT Best

HIGHLIGHT OF THE NIGHT

Best quote from the Dyer speech, taken from the question period at the end:

Raving anti-Semite: (rambling diatribe about Jews controlling the world, etc., etc.)
Dyer: Please... stop.
Raving anti-Semite: Don't shoot the messenger! Don't shoot the messenger!
Dyer: I don't want you to die. I just want you to stop talking.

Posted by BruceR at 12:59 AM

February 06, 2003

RIGHT WAR, WRONG REASONS? All

RIGHT WAR, WRONG REASONS?

All that below said, here's where I part with Dyer. While he feels that this is a war not worthy of Canadian support, because in his view it is so unlikely to be a long-term positive for humanity, I can't entirely content myself with the long view. There are Iraqis living under vicious oppression now. There is a move afoot that, whatever its other flaws, will alleviate that. Even if one believes that move stems from entirely the wrong reasons, the end result (the lifting of the sword off Iraqis' necks) has to be seen as a desirable good.

Even if we wouldn't want to go to war for America's stated reasons, even if we believe their unstated reasons are worse, that doesn't mean there can't be other reasons of our own that compel us to join them anyway. That's what alliances are, after all: not teams with common mindsets, but with common goals. If one can accept that argument that begins "yes, the Iraqi leadership is a horror, but the Americans still don't have a casus belli" I believe it's still moral to say that the horror is worth fighting and defeating in and of itself. If one wants to provide a moral alternative to the proposed war, it must include a path to freedom for Iraqis, particularly the Kurds and Shiites. Having not seen any alternative that maps out such a path, I find I can't in conscience oppose what amounts to the only hope for these people, even if I think the Americans are nuts to attempt it.

Speaking only as a citizen now, I'd also have to say I'd like Canada to be there. Perhaps not in the war phase, as I have yet to see a convincing deployment proposal that gets us there in time and in impressive force, and support among the population is so stunningly low. But definitely in the reconstruction... something of a historical specialty for our country. I believe the Americans will want to share that burden, even if they choose to leave the UN out of it, and I believe working with them we could do a lot of good for one country that deserves it. (The plan floated this week, to relieve a US battalion in Afghanistan with one of our own, would also be a worthy move, for the same reasons: there's a lot of reconstructing still to do there, too.)

Our sitting home and complaining isn't going to help one Iraqi. Anteing up and kicking in, in whatever way the Americans will have us, could help the Iraqis a lot. That's the unavoidable conclusion that I seem to have come to on this one. Not that I think anyone who knows me would be surprised by that.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, Dyer believes, at least based on his remarks last night, that Canada can be expected to ultimately support the war, too, but will avoid deploying ground forces, and drive a hard bargain with the Americans on other cross-border issues before consenting to the provision of whatever naval and air forces it can reasonably offer, a la 1991. He seems to regard this as the appropriate position for the Canadian nation to take: me, I find it a touch weaselly.

Posted by BruceR at 05:24 PM

WELL, HE'S CERTAINLY NOT ONE

WELL, HE'S CERTAINLY NOT ONE TO PANDER

I'll say one thing for Gwynne Dyer... he doesn't pander to his audience. I'm not saying it takes anything you'd call bravery, or courage, to walk into a potential confrontation with a room of several hundred peace activists (we're presumably not talking a particularly violent bunch here), but when he started his presentation at U of T last night by saying that all the efforts of Canadians to protest war in Iraq were guaranteed to be ineffective and possibly even counterproductive, one had to admire his candour.

Dyer, as he always does, had scathing words for excrescences like Arafat and Hussein, the undeniable chief architect of all Iraq's troubles. He was quite confident, however, that there will be a war in Iraq, that the Americans will win, that the Saudi monarchy is on its last legs, and that peace in Israel will begin to be achievable again once both Arafat and Sharon shuffle off stage. Americans are not imperialists, he told the gathered crowd, and the control of oil resources is not a factor in Bush's calculations. American fatalities in Iraq will at worst be in the low four figures. The Afghan intervention was not only just, but by comparison to any other war in history a moderate and proportionate response by an aggrieved nation. And the long-term trend in the Middle East, he believes, is still towards democratization and peace. So far, he and Paul Wolfowitz could hardly disagree.

Where Dyer parts ways, as do I I'm afraid, with the hawks on this issue is the absence of any confidence that the forthcoming American action will in the long run contribute in any way to that same long-term trend towards freedom he identifies. The former Sandhurst lecturer does believe this next war will be a setback, both for individual freedom in Iraq and international peace. I also have exactly zero confidence the post-war reconstruction, left in American hands, will go well. I base that, as does he, on the uncomfortable junction that must by now be self-evident, between achieving military success in Iraq and electoral success for Bush: the need by the Republican machine to look strong to a domestic audience, that seems to be driving not only the push for this war, but its curious, election-driven timetable.

In the meantime, he encouraged the peaceniks present to, um, keep their powder dry, if that's an appropriate metaphor, for the Iraq war, or perhaps just to continue to organize, because there might be better prospects of success the next time the Americans attempted a "regime change." Given Dyer's famous cynicism about everything and everyone except long-term human progress itself, that's not in retrospect an unusual or uncomfortable position for him, personally; I doubt, however, it was exactly what many of this particular crowd either expected or wanted to hear.

Posted by BruceR at 02:35 PM

February 04, 2003

I REALLY AM THINKING OF

I REALLY AM THINKING OF MOVING

Since they have vanished off the Toronto Star's easily available pages, here for posterity were the, um, thoughts they printed on the Columbia disaster from Canadian readers yesterday:

"As we read the morning paper, millions of dollars' worth of deadly high-tech weapons are being shipped around the world by Western and former Soviet-bloc countries. The astronauts who went out in a blaze of glory fell victim not just to an unforeseeable accident, but to the misguided priorities of a society enthralled by technology and the terrible beauty of its weapons."
--Ron Charach, Toronto

"In a few weeks the American government is proposing to bomb Iraq. This will almost certainly result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi [sic]. For that matter, thousands of American poor people die prematurely each year because they cannot afford necessary medical treatment before it is too late and the state won't help them get it. Will they receive national mourning?"
--Don Ewing, Guelph

"Where, among all the verbiage, was the admission that the primary goal of the U.S.-funded space program is not notable scientific advancement, but the militarization of space?"
--John Bell, Toronto

"NASA's development of nuclear-powered rockets, what the Americans call Project Prometheus, is a billion-dollar initiative that began last year... Weapons of mass destruction are being developed and tested by NASA. It is folly to believe that other, more devastating consequences will not occur that could affect millions of people."
--David Lee, Toronto

...and the corker...

"Shame on [columnist] Rosie DiManno for her use of the Columbia tragedy to stir hatred against Palestinians. If some choose to delight in this tragedy, let us understand why they could feel this way."
--Mike Gaspar, Barrie

Harsh? Just remember... those were only the letters they printed.

Posted by BruceR at 05:34 PM

LOOKING FORWARD TO DAMIAN'S RESPONSE

LOOKING FORWARD TO DAMIAN'S RESPONSE

Because what Canada needs, really needs, right now is a political party that stands firmly for the belief that Newfoundlanders are the moral equivalent of war criminals.

Posted by BruceR at 05:10 PM

INTERESTING PIECE THIS If you're

INTERESTING PIECE THIS

If you're an online gamer, anyway.

Posted by BruceR at 04:37 PM

February 03, 2003

POSSIBLY WORTH CHECKING OUT Noted

POSSIBLY WORTH CHECKING OUT

Noted columnist Gwynne Dyer will be speaking at U of T this Wednesday, at 7:30 pm, on the "Prospects of Disarmament." It's at the Brennan Hall auditorium at 81 St. Mary Street. Just FYI, if you live in Toronto. (I have another engagement earlier, but I'm hopeful I'll still be able to make it down.)

Posted by BruceR at 12:12 PM

TRENCHANT There is something noteworthy

TRENCHANT

There is something noteworthy a rocket can do that the shuttle cannot. A rocket can be permitted to fail. What if a billion dollar spaceship wipes out on a "routine" mission "commuting" to space with some puny little satellite? Cooper fears it might drive a stake through the heart of the manned space program. Would the public stand to lose a quarter of the fleet in a single day? Would it fork over another billion dollars to build a replacement? Would it stand for spending millions to train astronauts to be truck drivers, only to lose truck and drivers both? The prospect makes the old rockets seem kind of nice. One of the old throw-away jobs could go haywire, and spiral down into the ocean off the Bahamas, and everybody would feel miserable and millions would be wasted and everybody would go back to work. Lost. it, dammit-but then nobody ever expected it back.

--Gregg Easterbrook, Washington Monthly, April, 1980. Read Easterbrook's take on the Columbia disaster here.

Posted by BruceR at 10:53 AM

APOLOGIES TO MY ONE REMAINING

APOLOGIES TO MY ONE REMAINING READER

For me it seems, to paraphrase Lennon, blogging is what happens when I'm NOT making other plans. When regular life recedes, I'll be back.

Posted by BruceR at 10:05 AM