“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
PC Rules for a post 9-11 World.ReplyDelete
Never offend La Raza, AQ Sleepers, nor any other enemies by asking anyone's legal status:
A serious adult position or a sick joke?
American Legacy: Wayne DowningReplyDelete
Here is westhawk's obit for the General.ReplyDelete
A different perspective than Mr Yons', but quite fitting. The combined story provides a better image of the man than either of the seperate parts.
James P. Pinkerton says that:ReplyDelete
Gingrich, like Churchill, won't wage 'phony' war
"The G Team"
Michael Totten in BaghdadReplyDelete
Comment on Newt's SpeechReplyDelete
The Sunni are loving their bodyguards. The gist of Mr Trotten's story.ReplyDelete
Sounds like they need policemen in that part of Baghdad, not combat soldiers.
Beat cops backed up by SWAT Teams.
But then again, the Surge has not begun in Sadr City, where the ten percent of Iraq resides, 2.5 million people.
Arming Sunni militias and giving Sadr City's population a pass.
Doesn't mention Oil, but the Basra fields would have been secured at a Bargain Price v today's.ReplyDelete
B-1 Bob advocated such a plan, probably saw Downing's.
I think it's tradition, 'Rat:ReplyDelete
We've avoided "the city" from the start.
(back before we gave them and their sponsors years to get organized/mobilized)
Though I disagree with a few parts, overall, good video. Long has it been since a politician impressed me, so that's somethingReplyDelete
Don't see anything changing however. "Root causes" is now the dominant paradigm on right and left. One side's using the nonexistent catch-all solution known as the "Peace Process" to avoid bad thoughts and difficult decisions, while the other's betting our future on Middle East civilization, hardly a winning horse.
Muqtada al-Sadr - Nationalist or last man standing?ReplyDelete
Hell and handbasket - and an insecure, corrupt, and badly outmoded handbasket.ReplyDelete
The mental no-jihad zoneReplyDelete
Objecting to a recent column characterizing his views as being non-comprehending or indifferent to jihad, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to our forces in Iraq, wondered in an e-mail whether I "may not like Muslims, and that's your choice." It was a long e-mail — one of several — but even these few words convey the viewpoint, increasingly prevalent, that discounts the doctrinal centrality of Islam to jihad violence convulsing the world, from Iraq to London. In the mental no-jihad zone (and, in Lt. Col. Kilcullen's case, despite what he calls his "significant personal body count of terrorists and insurgents killed or captured"), only personal animus can explain alarm over the Islamic institution of jihad (let alone dhimmitude).
"Alternatively," he wrote, "you may think Islam contains illiberal and dangerous tendencies."
I may think? I do think "tendencies" such as jihad and dhimmitude. "Again," he said, "you're entitled to that view."
"That view" is increasingly absent at the top, where Islam itself is politically and strategically beside the point.
Consider current military thought, as expressed by Lt. Col. Kilcullen: Typical terrorists, he wrote, are "driven by fundamentally non-religious motivational factors."
I wonder which non-religious motivational factors inspired Glasgow's terror-docs to scream "Allah, Allah" while ramming a flaming car into the airport.
Of course, it gets worse. Debate now divides the Pentagon over a new lexicon for Centcom. At stake is the Islamic term "jihad" itself, which could become officially verboten within the ranks of the fighting force that is actually supposed to defeat it.
This might leave us speechless, but it better not shut us up.
Nice Comments by Pierre and AllisonReplyDelete
They have only recently come to realize that we are not at war, doug. At least not the war they thought we were in.ReplyDelete
Pierre has only recently come to take the President and his Generals at their word. He, like many others always believed Mr Bush was "just sayin'" those praises of the Religion of Peace, not that it was a core tenet of his thinking, truly.
Now he sees that the President's mindset prevails in the Federal Government, and he is shocked, shocked to find that Jihad is not considered an Islamic trait, by US.
Tried to tell him that, years ago, but he refused to believe that he should believe Mr Bush.
Mr Bush, considered a liar by both his supporters and detractors.ReplyDelete
Never understood how everyone could believe him so dishonorable.
Especially when Character was considered by his supporters to be his "strong suit".
I always have thought that Mr Bush believes what he says, when he says it.
Gingrich is Brilliant. He's, also, lazy, and a philanderer.ReplyDelete
If he, or Thompson, want to impress me they can get in the race, raise some money, and start engaging as a "player," not a spectator.
On my trip, I only saw one sign that was anti-war. In Miinesota I think. Nice polite sign, something like 'Bring the boys home, they have been there long enough, they aren't doing any good anymore'--hardly a groundswell. The people of the United States aren't carrying much of the burdern, the military is.If we are trying to birth a country that just doesn't want to be birthed it's hard to see the use of it. They still haven't done that oil revenue sharing law. How hard is that to do, if they had the desire? If Bush had another four years, maybe he could make it work out. But the dems play the issue for all its worth, hoping to ride it to victory. Three countries--we may end up with that, and hope they don't all hate us.ReplyDelete
Beer Hall = MosqueReplyDelete
Alla akbar = sieg heil
Would you vote for a man that basically told his wife of many years, you're not pretty enough to be 1st lady, get out of here, even if he is right on all the issues? If you were offered 4 or 8 years of the presidency, and a compliant congress, so you could really fix. say, the energy problem, but you had to leave you wife for good, would you do it?ReplyDelete
There are three general divisions of Iraqi Security Forces:
The highest level in the Iraqi Army- the soldiers of an IA brigade are drawn from a broad region, and they generally have the best training of Iraqi troops. Some IA divisions are considered to be quite competent- for example, I have heard good things about the 1st and 5th IA, both from American observers, and from Iraqi troops who have served in those units.
Below the level of the IA is the Iraqi Police- policemen are generally drawn from a city and the surrounding rural area. The quality of IPs varies widely by location: in al-Anbar province, most IPs are good men, trustworthy, and decently trained. In other areas, IPs have sometimes proven to be corrupt- or worse, more loyal to their tribal connections than to the government. IPs also have to deal with the dangers inherent in serving the Iraqi government near their hometowns- if they are recognized, their families could be in danger. One can watch the security situation in an area improve in the faces of the IPs-in Ramadi last year, most IPs (when they were present) wore face masks out of fear for their families. Now, they are usually uncovered.
The lowest level of ISF is the Provincial Security Forces. They come from an even smaller slice of countryside than do the IPs, and they attend a short academy that teaches basic skills before putting them into the field. PSF often serve directly alongside IPs, manning vehicle checkpoints and patrolling villages. They lend a direct knowledge of small communities that the IPs for the broader area may lack. Many PSF will prove themselves on the beat with the IPs, and will go on to the IP academies to become policemen themselves.
Below the scope of government security operations is the "Neighborhood Watch". These are volunteers from the local population, often managed by the local sheik and unpaid by the Iraqi government. The appearance of NW is often the portent of change in a historically violent area, because the formation of a local security force (as compared to outside intervention by Coalition Forces or ISF) represents a shift in the attitude of the local population.
Hell Bobal, from what I've heard (never seen) confirmed by Biden in the youtube shootout, we'd all be hard-pressed not to sell the country down the drain for Kucinich's 6'3" inch Babe!ReplyDelete
Gotta see a pic of those two together!
And people say we haven't been attacked!ReplyDelete
Folks who say Bush and Company have protected us for these years simply do not understand the nature of an INSURGENCY.
We're being "attacked" every day through our PC policies, through our borders, and by our pro-Islamic institutions.
Wake Up People!
Our neighbors' son has a new bumper sticker in the rear window of his pickup:ReplyDelete