SARS UPDATE: MedPundit responds to Michael Fumento’s post downplaying the risk and notes (scroll up one post from the one this link goes to) that one WHO physician, an otherwise healthy 46-year-old, has died from it.

AUSTIN BAY looks at the limitations of wargaming in predicting wars, and also makes a risky prediction. And there’s this observation:

The Pacific island campaigns in WWII provide a historical example. Once organized Japanese resistance ceased and the allies had an island’s airfields and ports operating, the brass would declare the place “secure.” Infantry regiments would withdraw to refit for the next amphibious assault. The “major operation” was over– but tell that to the Navy SeaBees on the “secure island” who would scrap with snipers for months after the front had officially moved forward.

In Iraq the fedayeen’s low-level resistance could flicker for months. That’s one reason US Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki says peacekeeping in post-Saddam Iraq will require more ground troops.

Guerrillas need popular support, but the Iraqi people fear the fedayeen. British troops report civilians are telling them where the paramilitaries hide. The population isn’t protecting the fascists. That suggests pro-Saddam holdouts may use guerrilla tactics but they’re death squads, not a guerrilla force.

No, I’m not going to tell you his prediction. You’ll have to follow the link for that.

PEJMAN HAS MOVED, to a new URL, and with a much easier to read design. He says he was inspired by Gary Hart.

DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ: David Adesnik wonders why liberals aren’t more enthusiastic about it.

LEE HARRIS writes on the allure, and illusions, of cosmopolitanism.

BLOGCRITICS RADIO is now featuring music by Elliptical, Eric Olsen’s band. Check it out.

The beauty of the DMCA is that you almost have to use indie bands who’ll give you permission. So if you’ve got something that’s worth listening to, let ’em know!

A PEACE ACTIVIST SAYS “I WAS WRONG:”

Beginning that night and continuing on in the private homes of relatives with whom I stayed little by little the scales began to come off my eyes.

I had not realized it but began to realize that all foreigners in Iraq are subject to 24 hour surveillance by government `minders` who arrange all interviews, visits and contact with ordinary Iraqis. Through some fluke either by my invitation as a religious person and or my family connection I was not subject to any government `minders` at any time throughout my stay in Iraq.

As far as I can tell I was the only person including the media, Human Shields and others in Iraq without a Government `minder` there to guard.

What emerged was something so awful that it is difficult even now to write about it. Discussing with the head of our tribe what I should do as I wanted to stay in Baghdad with our people during their time of trial I was told that I could most help the Assyrian cause by going out and telling the story to the outside world.

Simply put, those living in Iraq, the common, regular people are in a living nightmare. From the terror that would come across the faces of my family at a unknown visitor, telephone call, knock at the door I began to realize the horror they lived with every day.

Over and over I questioned them `Why could you want war? Why could any human being desire war?` They’re answer was quiet and measured. `Look at our lives!`We are living like animals. No food, no car, no telephone, no job and most of all no hope.`

Read the whole thing.

HOW’S THE WAR GOING? I’ve got a post on the subject over at GlennReynolds.com — and check out Will Femia’s look at how Big Media and weblogs are doing.

UPDATE: Steven Levy writes on warblogging and leads off with Sean-Paul Kelley and The Command Post.

Meanwhile, Power Line compares an article in the Washington Post by reporter Alan Sipress with one that Sipress wrote during the Afghan war and finds surprising similarities. Or maybe not-so-surprising similarities:

Sipress is one of the loudest of the “this is turning out to be more difficult than we thought” chorus. Really, though, his own experience should warn him against getting too hysterical. On November 9, 2001, Sipress wrote an article in the Post titled “Vajpayee Says U.S. Wasn’t Ready for War”, in which he quoted, with obvious approval, the Indian Prime Minister who said that “the United States had not been adequately prepared for the [Afghanistan] campaign;” “it appears the Taliban are well entrenched;” “the U.S. military campaign has suffered from a lack of adequate intelligence;” and “the campaign [will] continue to move slowly” because “it appears America was not prepared for this kind of war.”

Kabul fell four days later.

Heh. Rand Simberg has sympathy for the press.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s Mark Steyn’s take on how it’s going:

In so far as the enemy has a strategy, it’s to use their own people as hostages. The ‘pockets of resistance’ in the southern towns have been able to make mischief because they blend in with the local populations. They know that Washington and its allies are concerned above all to avoid casualties among Iraqi civilians and, indeed, among your typical Iraqi conscripts. In other words, everything the Baath regime does is predicated on the moral superiority of their foe. If things were the other way round, if Iraq invaded Vermont and some diehard Yankees holed up on the outskirts of White River Junction and started firing on Saddam’s forces as they attempted to advance up the valley, the Republican Guard would think nothing of levelling the entire downtown area and everyone in it. Who’s going to complain? There’s no Baghdad ‘Not In Our Name’ movement.

So Harold ‘Poems R Us’ Pinter may think the Yanks are itching to massacre thousands of innocents, but the behaviour of the Baathist nutters suggests they know better: they assume Western decency.

His bottom line:

Well, speaking as someone not privy to the entrails of the Reuters chicken, let me go out on a limb here: the Anglo-Aussie-American forces will win. And the way they win will have tremendous implications for the years ahead.

Read the whole thing, as they say. And read Stephen Green’s thank-you to Britain — which is a lot more than just a “thank you.”

And, finally, David Adesnik rates the questions from yesterday’s Bush/Blair press conference and calls them “confrontational — and predictable.” Yep. They’re like sophomores, showing off for freshmen.

OKAY, ONE MORE: Read this bit of archival press criticism from Toren Smith.

BELOW, I refer to Prof. De Genova as a Holocaust denier, of sorts (he doesn’t deny it happened, he just thinks that through some sort of historical mumbojumbo the Jews have turned into the bad guys). But Tom Perry thinks De Genova is a Holocaust promoter for wishing for a “million Mogadishus:”

Obviously this is a dumb thing to say, and Columbia University must be a silly place. Just for a moment, let’s pretend de Genova meant it.

18 American soldiers died, and 73 were injured in the Battle of Mogadishu. Thus, De Genova would like to see 18 million American soldiers killed, and 73 million injured. That would account for everyone in the armed forces and most of the American militia, of which De Genova is a member.

Where do you want your bullet, doc?

Moving on, we find that De Genova would like to see approximately 750 million little brown foreigners mowed down by American machine guns. This is a conservative estimate, but it should be sufficient to take care of any problems we have with people in the Middle East. See, the great thing about American military defeats is, we always win!

Can do, chief!

Back in reality, we ask what de Genova was thinking. The answer: he wasn’t. Thinking is, like, passe, and so is meaning what you say.

Kind of sad, isn’t it, when a guy who goes by the handle “dipnut” is able to think and talk rings around a Columbia professor?

Sad — and, nowadays, utterly typical.

UPDATE: Here’s a firsthand account of the event, while Sarah Maserati wonders if Columbia would be defending De Genova’s free speech rights if he had called for a million Matthew Shepards. Some questions answer themselves, don’t they? But, see, to the folks at Columbia gay people are people. American soldiers are just oppressors.

Justin Katz has some further thoughts.

SAUDI ENVOY’S MYSTERY DEATH: I’m going to take a flyer and say that it was connected to the insurgency there.

IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY, go read Phil Carter’s blog. He has interesting observations on logistics, and a lot more.

STEVEN DEN BESTE:

Russian President Putin says that the war in Iraq has pushed the world into its most serious post-Cold-War crisis.

I think that it was the attacks on Washington and New York in September of 2001 which pushed the world into crisis. The only difference is that the US recognized that fact. Most of the rest of the world have been in denial about it ever since.

Yep.

THE CNN BIT seemed to go okay, though it’s always hard to tell from in front of the camera. When you do these things, you don’t usually get a monitor, which means you’re sitting in a darkened room, with bright lights in your eyes, squinting (or, rather, trying not to squint) at the camera while tiny voices talk in your ear. You can’t see the graphics, you can’t tell what the host is doing, you can’t tell when you’re on the screen and when you’re not, etc., etc. The photo on the right, which I snapped while I was waiting to go on, is a typical view. I did manage to get a plug in for Kevin Sites’ blog, though, which probably won’t please the suits at CNN. (By the way, Xeni Jardin informs me that there’s a Kevin Sites blog fan-group discussion board now. Instead of the Scud Stud, he’s the Blog Stud!)

It’s a beautiful day here, as you can see from this image I snapped on the way back to the office, and I’m going to go enjoy it a bit. I’ve spent too much time huddled in front of a computer lately, and both body and soul need some sunshine. Back later.

THAT’LL BE ALL FOR ME FOR A WHILE: In the meantime, check out The Command Post, SgtStryker.com, The Agonist, StrategyPage, Steven Den Beste, and the many other fine weblogs linked to the left and below.

The CNN thing is supposed to air about 12:15. Like all TV, that’s subject to change at the last minute.

UDPATE: Read this piece, too. I agree that the biggest danger is an artificial timetable, and I’m happy to see that Bush and Blair seem determined to avoid one.

And read this account of aid and comfort from Columbia:

“The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military,” Nicholas De Genova, assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia University told the audience at Low Library Wednesday night. “I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.”

That kind of thing is an embarassment and a disgrace to the academic profession. Columbia should be ashamed. Even Eric Foner was embarrassed. And the people who said that Andrew Sullivan was being hysterical when he warned of a “Fifth Column” of academics and journalists who would actively root for America’s defeat owe Andrew an apology. Another one.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Read this piece by Eugene Volokh, which seems to expose De Genova as a Holocaust-denier, more or less. Why am I not surprised? Like a lot of people who say they’re “anti-war,” he’s really just on the other side. And lest anyone accuse me of “McCarthyism” for pointing that out, let me note that he says so himself.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE: Lou Dolinar forwards this suggestion, whcih actually came from a friend of his:

POWER TO THE PEOPLE — THE IRAQI PEOPLE

I’d like to share with you an idea that would help win the war in Iraq…and more importantly, help win the hearts and minds of its people — which we’ll need for lasting peace:

Our government should announce — soon — that the new postwar Iraqi administration will “personalize” the nation’s oil revenues by establishing an Iraqi national investment trust — The Iraqi People’s Freedom Trust — that will receive a major share — say, 50% — of all future Iraqi oil earnings.

The rest can go to central government and federal regional governments on some per capita basis.

Each Iraqi — man, woman or child — would be eligible for a personal investment account in the trust once they register as citizens of New Iraq. This is actually a fairly straightforward administrative issue to handle — given modern computing capacity, ID systems etc.

Funds in the trust may be invested in New Iraq government bonds, domestic equities, venture capital investments in Iraq or international markets. But legal ownership will be vested in each individual Iraqi — not the tribe, clan region, power-broker etc. Any Iraqi over age 21 may withdraw funds or borrow against their balances — for any reason at all.

The core models here are the Singapore Provident Fund and the existing system by which all Alaskan state citizens receive an annual check, representing their share of that state’s oil revenue.

The effect — immediately — would be to establish irrefutably that the U.S. is NOT waging this war to somehow steal Iraqi oil — but rather to return this resource to the benefit of the Iraqi people themselves — directly. One person at a time.

It would give all Iraqis a clear sense of the profound policy difference between liberators and corrupt thieves like the Ba’ath regime who have exploited, stolen and misused oil revenues in way that infuriate ordinary Iraqis — and endanger the world.

It would give the new state administration of free Iraq an immediate, directly appealing way to register citizens — and voters — and to reward their loyalty.

By ensuring that all Iraqis will have access — on reaching adulthood — to significant sources of money — it would spur entrepreneurship, revitalize the whole economy, distribute real resources to the most remote and poor regions of the country and create a very strong interest among all ethnic and confessional groups and tribes in ensuring their nation’s future stability.

We’re not talking small money here. Once its oil facilities are repaired and production is ramped up, Iraq can earn $50 billion a year from its oil. 50% of that would be about $1,000 a year per person…and funds would accumulate for young people to even more significant sums — until they came of age… I would suggest to you that such a proposal, properly structured and publicized, would have the kind of impact — in Iraq and on world opinion — that Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation did on the domestic politics — and nternational diplomacy — of our own Civil War. It would be the same kind of profoundly moral — and revolutionary — stroke.

I cannot, by God, think of a sharper, clearer bolt from the blue that would clarify what it means to “liberate” this country. And it is very hard to think of any long-term downside to this proposal.

I don’t have to tell you that centralized government control over oil and its revenues elsewhere in the world has very often been a spur to horrendous corruption, rent-seeking, and capital flight.

There’s a reason why many people refer to oil as “the Devil’s Excrement.” I believe we could turn that manure into fertilizer.

Fascinating. I’m not sure that it’s our oil to dispose of in this fashion, but I’d be interested in hearing what you think.

BBC CHIEF DENIES BIAS — while speaking at a meeting of “Media Workers Against the War.” You can’t make this stuff up.

MORE BAD NEWS FROM FRANCE:

Violent hate crimes quadrupled in France in 2002 to the highest level in a decade, with more than half the assaults aimed at Jews, a national study has found. . . .

In the report, the committee said 193 of 313 attacks were against Jews in a “real explosion” of anti-Semitic violence. Last year, the group reported 32 acts of anti-Jewish violence.

Hopefully, the explosion of antisemitism in Europe has peaked. We’ll see.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: Roscoe Shrewsbury emails:

On the one hand, the Anti-American Class has been saying all along that Iraq is no threat to anyone; on the other, they are now crowing with trembling, barely-suppressed glee, that Iraq is far more formidable than anyone had supposed.

Yes, I’ve noticed that myself.

GARY HART IS BLOGGING.

STRATEGYPAGE has a daily roundup on the war. Here’s a bit from today’s, which is worth reading in its entirety for the kind of perspective that the TV coverage lacks:

The pundits are already making comparisons to Vietnam, but there are some important differences. The main one being that Saddam’s government is a brutal dictatorship that is unpopular with most of the population and that there are no nearby nations providing support for Saddam’s followers. Even the Iraqi government admits that it is cut off and not able to hold out for a long time. Saddam’s major weapon is media manipulation and turning himself into a heroic Arab folk hero, bravely fighting off the evil Western crusaders. The reality is different, but that doesn’t mean you can’t reinvent yourself via the media. Madonna has done it several times. . . .

After one week of operations, U.S. forces have suffered 22 killed in combat, six dead in accidents (including two killed by a soldier attacking other soldiers in Kuwait). Seven troops are prisoners and 17 are missing. By historical standards, these are record lows in casualties for troops actively campaigning against an armed enemy.

Read the whole thing.

IS ALAN COWELL DEFENDING WAR CRIMES in advance? The Scrutineer thinks so, and makes a pretty damning case. Excerpt:

Apparently Cowell finds nothing illegal, let alone “dishonorable,” in faking surrender or disguising yourself as a woman so that you can more easily kill an enemy who spares your life to avoid committing a war crime. Allied commanders may “see” such tactics as dishonorable, but I guess they’re just biased.

Well, it certainly couldn’t be the Times, could it?

UPDATE: I wonder what Cowell would think if — as a “ruse of urban warfare” — we sent a bunch of special forces types in disguised as journalists. Sounds as if it might work:

A French TV crew got lost, while traveling with an American combat unit, and simply drove into Baghdad (where they found a hotel room and decided to stay for the attack on the city.)

Sure, a “ruse” like that would probably put journalists’ lives at risk, but hey — this is “urban warfare” and all bets are off. Right?

UPDATE: A reader suggests that this is too hard on Cowell, because he doesn’t come right out and defend the behavior of the Saddamites. No — but it’s all a matter of balance. If the United States were engaging in flagrant violation of the laws of war, would he maintain such a detached tone? I don’t think so.

JAMES LILEKS ISN’T HAPPY WITH THE TV COVERAGE:

TV is useful for pictures – I get the feeling sometimes this should be called Operation Stock Footage – and it’s useful for seeing retired military people draw lines on maps. . . .

The details never seem to filter into the TV reports – for all the embeddedness of the reportorial faction, I’ve yet to see a big smashing battle. The more you watch the more you realize how little you’re seeing.

Jason Kottke wrote something similar the other day:

I’ve had the TV on all afternoon, watching it while I work. Right now, I’m watching tiny pixelated people moving around on the deck of an aircraft carrier. This scene imparts absolutely no information, knowledge, or perspective to the viewer.

Meanwhile, Mr. Cranky says he hates the coverage — but, of course, he hates everything. And — at a more professional level — Martin Van Creveld says that “all the pictures shown on TV are color pieces which have no significance.”

I agree, and I’ve barely watched it. There’s more, and better news on the web. And this view transcends whether you’re pro-war or anti-war, as the quotes above illustrate. They’re just not doing a very good job.

UPDATE: Bryan Preston has some further thoughts.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Bill Hobbs points to this interesting piece on what the war coverage is hitting, and missing.

MICHAEL FUMENTO writes that SARS is being overhyped. I hope he’s right.

“PROOF” OF IRAQI BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS:

“British forces have made significant discoveries in recent days which show categorically that Iraqi troops are prepared for the use of such horrific weapons.

“I want to make it clear that any Iraqi commander who sanctions the use of such weapons of mass destruction is committing a war crime and will be held personally responsible for his action.”

“Paperwork and other equipment” had been found in the command post search, Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce said.

Meanwhile this report notes that “a woman believed to be one of the Iraqi regime’s top biological weapons scientists was seen in a televised meeting with President Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials said. It is not yet known, however, when that taped meeting took place.” Let’s hope it was an old tape. But there’s also this report of chemical weapons being readied.

Hey, I thought he didn’t have those?

IS THE BBC ENDANGERING SALAM PAX? Sounds like it.

I’m supposed to be on CNN later talking about warblogs, and I had talked them out of featuring Salam. Like it matters, when it’s been all over the BBC World Service, with lots of personal details. If he turns out to have been killed by Saddam’s goons, I’m going to very publicly blame the BBC.

UPDATE: A couple of people ask when I’m going to be on CNN. Looks like 12:15 EST, but there’s some sort of White House event that may kill it. Stay, er, tuned.

One person also asks why I’m slamming the BBC when I’ve linked to Salam myself. That’s a fair question. But what I haven’t done is release a lot of identifying details that have never been published online. The New Yorker did that, but took it off their website pretty quickly when people complained. Apparently, though, the BBC World Service — which is sure to be carefully monitored by whatever’s left of Iraqi intelligence services — repeated those details and maybe some more. My feelings on linking to Salam are that when you put stuff on the web, you expect for people to read it. He’s a big boy, and knows the risks better than we do. But putting up information that he hasn’t seen fit to make public seems to me to be crossing a line.