update: Given the amount of email I've received on this post, I've updated the picture to more clearly show that the data only goes to 1990. This is why you may see news information about weapons provided by firms from other countries (e.g., Jordan, Germany, etc.) that is not captured here. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) only felt confident in their information up to 1990. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, any and all arm trades to Iraq would be a violation of the United Nation sanctions. Obviously, these sellers did everything possible to hide these sales and SIPRI certainly does not have all of this information.


In addition, SIPRI does not try to show which weapons are more effective. SIPRI calculated the dollar amount of all weapon transfers (in 1990 dollars). So in terms of dollar value, Russia was responsible for 57% of all weapon sales to Iraq between 1973 and 1990.

When I watch a television show or a movie, I like to get caught up in it. Producers want to generate that experience, so watching a well-made production should be a win-win experience. Science fiction productions are especially difficult for a producer to create, because it is harder to maintain the viewer's suspension of disbelief. Not only do producers have to semi-realistically portray fictitious events, science fiction viewers tend to catch technical errors that might slip past typical viewers (or typical editors). When errors are ridiculous, the suspension of disbelief is snapped and the producer's efforts are in vain.

For example, I remember watching Star Trek: The Next Generation when the series was fairly new and being shocked when a member of the crew scanned a planet and announced the planet's temperature was about negative 280 degrees centigrade. Absolute zero is approximately negative 273 degree centigrade. I don't remember much else about that episode, but I still remember the writers were unaware of basic high-school physics. Of course, picking on Star Trek is easy. The Federation can beam people on Borg cubes at will, but has trouble figuring out how to destroy the same cubes. Hmmm, why not beam aboard some of that anti-matter the Feds use in their engines and let physics do the rest? But picking on Star Trek is like catching fish in a barrel and I'll refrain from other examples before too many Trekkies start emailing me protests.

Friday night I was home with my wife. It had been a busy week, so we vegged out in front of the TV and watched John Doe. I've seen a few of these, and they are usually entertaining. But Friday's episode was horrible. I won't bother summarizing the plot, but Doe and his friends have four items in a briefcase. Each one of the four has an altered barcode with 14 characters instead of the normal 12. According to the show, each bar code contains a vast amount of data, but the data is only useful if the information is entered in a particular order. The characters can't try every possible combination because it would take over 40 years to do so. But Doe figures out the correct order and it takes the computer mere seconds to make sense of the data.

OK, reality check. Each altered barcode contains 14 characters. 4 x 14 = 56 characters. Using barcodes - that were read with normal scanners - to store vast amounts of information is ridiculous. This paragraph takes up more than 56 characters...

But even if we assume Doe had found four magic barcodes that could store vast amounts of information, the whole scenario still falls apart. Given four items, that all must be used, there are only 24 possible combinations (4! = 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24). Even assuming it took the computer 1 minute to analyze each (and it took less than that for the proper combination), it would take less than 24 minutes to solve the problem even if the proper combination was the last one tried. So much for 40 years.

Well, now you can see why I don't watch much television. I haven't yet gone to a movie this year either, but I might go see The Core. According to National Geographic, the science isn't that bad. Even though I don't believe the loss of the Earth's magnetic field would be immediately catastrophic, the rest of the review looked promising. I might be able to suspend my disbelief long enough to enjoy the movie.

And he has posted a comprehensive article on Europe and the Post-Modern Left. Warning, it is not light reading and could serve a graduate report on the subject. It is quite interesting if you enjoy philosophy and has some interesting premises even if you do not.

I really like his main thesis - that a cold war exists between some in Europe and the States, but this war is war of philosophies. It is a very reasonable explanation for the actions of some in Europe. He also states we are losing the war because of our schools. And if we cannot get a handle on our education system, I agree we will have a problem. However, I'm not quite as concerned as the Wild Monk since I believe the children and grandchildren of the Baby Boomers are more conservative than their parents. I'm still concerned mind you, but I think there is more room for optimism.

I fully agree with the Monk's claim that Rousseau completely missed the impact of Christianity on a society. I'm not sure if it was reasonable or not for Rousseau to make this mistake, it was probably his biggest blunder. I wonder what would have happened if Max Weber had been a contemporary of Rousseau and had first written about the Protestant work ethic?

I also agree with him about the position of France and why they are anti-American. (Of course there is also the European view of things too. "It is not enough to succeed, a friend must fail." - there is a German word for this concept that currently escapes me, but many folks in Europe hold this view. I don't know when it originated, but it goes back to at least the 15th Century (Francois, duc de La Rochefoucauld. (1613-1680), maxim 34).

However, I disagree with lumping Germany and France together. While the French have clustered behind Chirac, Schroeder's popularity has crashed to record lows. I have great hope that German-American relations may improve after Schroeder leaves office in 2006. I don't have much hope for Franco-American relations to improve.

There are many perceptive points in the essay. My favorite part was the point that America should not defeat itself - if it doesn't the Left is left to shout at the wind. And his take on Chomsky comments made me laugh - very true and observant. Again, if you are interested in the impact of philosophy on current events, go read it yourself.

Per NASA's request, US military resources will monitor future shuttle flights and make these space photographs available to NASA. This request stems from the loss of the Columbia. Until a replacement for America's aging space fleet is built, this seems like a reasonable precaution so long as is it is not the only precaution to be implemented by NASA.

Impressed with how effective the US military was in the first hours in the campaign to liberate Iraq, many journalists have started second-guessing the military now that the war is into its second week.  Its second week!  And the coalition already has established air superiority, taken control of all Iraqi ports, and controls the majority of the country.  In addition, the coalition has managed to protect most of the country's resources for its people, including dams, bridges, and oil fields.  The coalition has managed to do this while (to date) suffering a remarkably low number of casualties.  In addition, the coalition has done all of this while taking extreme care to minimize the number of civilian casualties and offering Iraqi soldiers many, many opportunities to surrender.

Instead of downbeat reports about 'unexpected' resistance, the media should be discussing the amazing military prowess of the coalition.  The only thing unexpected about the war so far has been its rapid progress.  Every casualty is regrettable, but only a fool would expect a war with no casualties.  More people died from lightening strikes in the US last year than have been killed fighting Saddam's troops.  I predict far more people will die from fatal car accidents in Los Angeles County alone in 2003 than all coalitions losses from the entire war.

Let's also look at a reasonable timeframe.  The Taliban, a government with only a small fraction of the military resources of Saddam Hussein, lasted 14 weeks against the US government.  As Jonathan Last pointed out, even the French - hardly the epitome of military competence - lasted 7 weeks against the Germans.  Surely, one would expect the Iraqi regime to fight harder than the French.  After all, the thugs that support Saddam Hussein expect death by the hands of their fellow Iraqis for their past atrocities should they ever lose their grip on power.  Unless they see an opportunity to survive the peace, they will fight to the last man.

I would be surprised if this war was over in less than 7 weeks.  I would not be surprised if it took 14 weeks.  Some statistics are provided for you below to help you keep the war in context.  Next time someone bemoans our "slow" pace, rattle off a few of them as a reality check.  You'll be glad you did.

Coalition Casualties in Context

50,000,000 deaths (conservative estimates) in World War II (summary)
8,000,000 soldiers died (conservative estimates) in World War I (summary)
710,760 US deaths due to Heart Disease in 2000 (CDC)
553,091 US deaths due to Cancer in 2000 (CDC)
407,000 US soldiers killed in WWII (Angelfire)
167,661 US deaths due to Stroke in 2000 (CDC)
134,600 US babies killed by Abortion in 2000 (Germany)
122,009 US deaths due to Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease in 2000 (CDC)
97,900 US deaths due to Accidents in 2000 (largest percentage of these were traffic accidents) (CDC)
69,301 US deaths due to Diabetes in 2000 (CDC)
65,313 US deaths due to Pneumonia/Influenza in 2000 (CDC)
58,000 US soldiers died in Vietnam (two cites)
50,000 US soldiers died (conservative) in World War I (two cites)
49,558 US deaths due to Alzheimer's Disease in 2000 (CDC)
37,251 US deaths due to Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis in 2000 (CDC)
33,000 US soldiers died in Korea (two cites)
31,224 US deaths due to Septicemia in 2000 (CDC)
16,000 to 19,000 US soldiers died in six weeks at the Battle of the Bulge (two cites)
14,400 Chechnyan rebels killed as of March 2003 and uncounted civilians (RFE)
3,770 Russian Soldiers killed as of March 2003 in Chechnyan Conflict (per Russian government)
3,547 persons were killed in international terrorist attacks in 2001, most on September 11 (US)
749 People killed in Los Angeles County car accidents in 2000 (LA Almanac)
89 - average number of people killed in the US per year by lightning (NCDC)

Coalition Timeframe in Perspective

10 years - Soviet Union war with Taliban - Soviets gave up and withdrew
8 years - Vietnam (1965-1973) (American part of war, hostilities against the French started in 1946)
6 years - World War II (assuming 1939-1945; some say WWII started in 1937) - the US entered in 1941
4 years - World War I (1914-1918)
3 years - Korean War (1950-1953) - (although N. & S. Korea have never officially agreed to peace)
14 weeks - US war with Taliban - Taliban surrendered (9 weeks if you just measure until the surrender of Kunzar)
7 weeks - the Battle of the Bulge (important battle in WWII)
7 weeks - the German invasion of France - from initial fighting to official surrender
7 weeks - Gulf War I (US led Desert Storm)

I was visiting Winds of Change and saw a link to an incredible article on Yahoo News about a stockbroker who has outdone Hillary Clinton.

Sources at the Security and Exchange Commission confirm that 44-year-old Andrew Carlssin offered the bizarre explanation for his uncanny success in the stock market after being led off in handcuffs on January 28.

"We don't believe this guy's story -- he's either a lunatic or a pathological liar," says an SEC insider. "But the fact is, with an initial investment of only $800, in two weeks' time he had a portfolio valued at over $350 million. Every trade he made capitalized on unexpected business developments, which simply can't be pure luck.

This was the most amusing and entertaining news clipping I had seen all year. But I didn't believe it for a minute. After all, even if a hypothetical time traveler did need cash for some reason, why not buy a lottery ticket? Much, much easier and it wouldn't arouse any undue attention from the authorities. So, I did a little research and found out the entire thing was an urban legend. But it was a lot of fun playing with the possibilities...

How many of you have seen a variant of the Global Village? This is where people use the demographics of the world and describe a village of 100 people as an aid to better understanding the world. Done properly, this is a great way to make people think. However, I've noticed a trend where different special interests have played with the statistics to stress one point or another. I cleaned up an anonymous version that I was emailed and posted it here.

The facts should be accurate, but I couldn't verify a few of them. I have added this document to my references section. If you see a statistic you believe to be incorrect, please contact me (quixote -at- solport.com) with a reference and I'll update it.

Many Americans are disgusted with the UN and would cheer if President Bush withdrew from the UN.  Charles Krauthammer writes:

There were wars and truces and treaties before the UN was created - as there will be after its demise. No need to leave the organisation formally, Mr President. Just ignore it. Without us, it will wither away.

Richard Perle, an advisor to the Pentagon, states:

The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.

American independents have always been leery of the United Nations.  However, this concern is now shared by more people than ever.

Calls for ending or curtailing U.S. involvement in the U.N. came from Charles Krauthammer, Mona Charen, William Kristol, Linda Chavez and David Gerlernter. These are not Birchers; they are mainstream pundits.

Even those in the US who support the UN - fewer and fewer each day - have to cringe when they read the news.  Some examples from just this week involve Ritter and Cuba.

The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.  "The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win."

At least Ritter is no longer officially part of the UN.  The same cannot be said for the UN Human Rights Committee headed by Libya of all countries.

A resolution presented Wednesday to the top U.N. human rights body does not include a condemnation of Cuba's record, a rare move that immediately drew protests from rights campaigners.

Hardly a way for the UN to win American friends at a time when many Americans are seriously questioning future US membership in the UN.  At the same time the French are screaming that the UN must be in charge of the establishment of a new Iraqi government.  The US said no.  Interestingly enough, so did Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) umbrella opposition group. 

But this issue of the UN involvement's in the formation of the next Iraqi government is a sideshow compared to the future of the UN itself.  Will it join the League of Nations?  Will it proceed as if nothing had occurred?  Will it continue to exist with a smaller role?

Before I make my predictions, let see what the rest of the world think about the UN.

From the Hindustan Times

Last September, President Bush ungallantly pointed out that the council, like the proverbial emperor, has no clothes. However weak his multilateral credentials, on this he is right: the council has shed credibility for so long that more worldly leaders have forgotten what it looks like. His warnings about the UN morphing back into the League of Nations have fallen on deaf ears in capitals that would prefer a weak council to a strong one dominated by the US. They are as ambivalent about American power as Washington is about the international organisation.

In Russia, the Moscow Times discusses what they call Bush's Brezhnev Doctrine

Russia and France, supported by China and Germany, deadlocked the UN Security Council by threatening to veto any ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.  All that Russia and France really accomplished was to seriously undermine the authority of the UN and cripple existing international law.  As the United States this week finally and firmly assumed its role as undisputed world hegemon, the old world order created in 1945 began to fold. It was France and Russia that gave the existing system the kiss of death by exposing its emptiness and fundamental immorality.

After the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty was formulated proclaiming the right of the Soviet Union to invade satellite states in order to support pro-Moscow "socialist" regimes. Now a new Bush-Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty may become the basis of international law. The United States now claims a sovereign right to invade any other country to change a nasty regime, if the president and Congress agree to it. The UN, France, Russia and other "veto holders" can go and get stuffed if they do not like this new emerging world order.

The move to stop a ratification that Moscow needs more than Washington reflects the confusion of our elite as we see the old world order, in which we were an important player, collapse as a result of our own -- together with France's -- diplomatic insanity.

Xin Xu, a graduate student in political science who recently earned her bachelor's degree in law from Nankai University in the People's Republic of China stated:

China is afraid the United Nations is going to turn into what the League of Nations was in its powerless days before World War II.

(Just as the world is going through a massive reorganization, so is China.  This Shanghai Star article not only showed that many Chinese are starting to understand the US, but also demonstrates China's growing tolerance for various opinions within China.  We do indeed live in interesting times.)

From Nairobi, E.D. Mathew expects that not only will the UN continue, but that it will administer Iraq.

...this is not the first time we hear rumours of the UN's sad demise. Four years ago, when NATO and the United States bombed Yugoslavia over its conduct in Kosovo without UN's approval, it was widely announced that the world body was dead, or at least had become irrelevant. However, after the war, when arrangements had to be found to administer Kosovo, the matter returned to the Security Council. Soon, Kosovo was placed under UN's tutelage.

Mexico's UN ambassador sees the current mess as an opportunity for Mexico - which takes over as head of the UN security council next week.

He has also been making startlingly ambitious comments about the future of the UN, in a breach with Mexico's tradition of non-involvement in global affairs. "Mexico thinks it is necessary to revise and limit the power of veto," he said this week, adding that this would have to be in the context of a profound re-ordering of how the UN worked.

I think he is having delusions of grandeur.  Why would any of the five veto powers (especially France) agree to this?  And if even one disagrees, the requested change will simply be vetoed.  I doubt it will even come up for a vote.

From the Taipei Times (Taiwan):

Every time a problem arises, the UN depends on the US to act as a "global policeman" before Iraq will begin to toe the line. But Iraq always reverts to its former behavior. This time they were cooperating with UN weapons inspectors only because they had been squeezed like a tube of toothpaste by intense US military pressure.

The powerlessness of the UN is hardly limited to its performance on the Iraq problem. Does the UN really love peace so much? When China fired missiles into the Taiwan Strait, threatening to first destroy Taiwan and then rebuild it, did the UN step up and make any statements? Why didn't they urge Beijing to patiently use political means to solve the problem? What has the UN done to safeguard the rights of Taiwan's 23 million people or ensure that they are free of the terror stemming from China's military threat?

I selected quotes from around the world (and provided the links) in an attempt to show the greater context.  These quotes should not be that surprising to those who follow international perspectives (much different than following international news).  Even the head of the UN admits the problem, although he obviously hopes it can be fixed.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted on Wednesday the world was bitter at the United Nations' handling of the Iraqi crisis and said it was time for the big powers to unite on the needs of the Iraqi people.  "All of us must regret that our intense efforts to achieve a peaceful solution through this council did not succeed," he said. "We are living through a moment of deep divisions, which, if not healed, can have grave consequences for the international system and relations between states."

Tim Giago, a UN supporter, predicted the UN would be useless if the war to liberate Iraq started (March 13, 2003):

The United Nations is now the sole agency standing between war and peace in the Middle East. If the laws and the options offered by the United Nations are discarded as meaningless by the United States, the entire organization is then discredited. It becomes a toothless tiger unable to cope with the military aggressions of nations worldwide.

The UN has always been a toothless tiger that depended upon its strongest members to enforce its claims in the rare instances where the UN could muster the willpower to ask for force.  That is why Iraq ignored them for twelve years.

Conclusions

It is clear that one of the reasons that America is disliked by many is because of the great power America holds.  This is not just a fear of the strong, but a very natural and honest frustration that the fate of the UN is largely in hands of the US.  If the US - by itself - withdrew from the UN, the UN will instantly become irrelevant.  It would probably hang around for years to come (like the League of Nations), but it would treated with even less respect than it was before the current war.  No wonder other countries resent America.  Even the most fervent supporters of the UN recognize that its continual existence depends upon the United States - a country that may decide that their best interests are served by withdrawing from the UN.  Of course, many of these UN supporters also don't believe the US would ever do such a thing - it is inconceivable in their eyes.

I see two potential futures for the UN.  If the members of the UN security council are logical, they will support the US plan to allow the UN a supporting role which would largely focus on humanitarian aid in Iraq.  This would be in line with Charles Dougherty prediction that:

The U.N. will function as a humanitarian and cultural organization. It will not die like the League of Nations. It will simply become irrelevant in major foreign policy conflicts.

Interestingly enough, this depends upon the UN Security Council as well.  France and Russia have threatened to stop this limited involvement for reasons of their own.  Many of the decisions of the UN council have been based on emotion, not logic.  If France and/or Russia manage to stop the UN from serving in this role, the US may ignore the UN altogether.

This leads to the other potential future.  A world where the US either officially withdraws from the UN, or just ignores it (and retains its veto power).  Given President Bush's loyalty to Blair, I don't expect the US to officially withdraw from the UN any time soon.  As much as I would personally like to see the UN join the League of Nations, I suspect my tax monies will continue to be wasted on supporting the UN for quite some time.  The only way I would predict the US to withdraw (officially or unofficially) from the UN is with the help of France and Russia.

Bottom line:  The UN will remain in its current form for a long time.  It will be treated with less respect than before, but since it was always a paper tiger, most people won't notice any difference.  The only way I see the US dumping the UN is if it gets some 'help' from France and/or Russia.

The Iraqis were using Russian-built GPS jammers in an attempt to hinder the Coalition's war effort. The GPS jammers have little to no impact on bombs for several reasons. 1) Our military believes in redundancy and has several backups for bomb and missile guidance. 2) The jamming has little to no impact on military assets high above the ground; they can still pick up the GPS signal from the broadcasting satellites. Even if bombs lose the signal on the way down, their backup systems can easily keep them on target.

However, the jammers hinder (or eliminate) the usefulness of GPS receivers at ground level. This was not appreciated by the US military as there are many, many uses for ground-based GPS. This is why the US forces reportedly destroyed all of the GPS jammers.

If you are interested in this topic, visit here.

One Hand Clapping has a nice piece on the importance of artillery in warfare. It is an interesting read (especially the comments) and I sent it to a friend of mine. Dave is a NCO in the U.S. Army Reserves and his MOS (military occupational specialty) is Field Artillery. He had some interesting comments about both the post on artillery and those second guessing General Tommy Franks.

That [Donald's post at One Hand Clapping] is why artillery is called the King of Battle...

My 2 cents about the people who question Franks' "battle plan": Idiots... all of them... and you can quote me on that as a SSG [Staff Sergeant] in the US Field Artillery. The fact that they have never actually seen the battle plan has in no way inhibited them from blindly questioning and second-guessing it. IMO, that makes them idiots. They question the security of the logistical lines when, in reality, only once has there been an "incident" along them, and that was a direct result of the support vehicles leaving the 'secured' area. Half of these analysts have never served in the military and so have no realistic basis for their assumptions (maybe I am biased being a current member, but there are some things you can't understand unless you've been there). Others have served, but have been retired long enough (even ol' Stormin' Norman's knowledge is considered outdated) that they have no idea of the present capabilities of a modern US military.

Me... I'll trust the guy who's spent the last 30 or so years of his life dedicated to leading troops (that's Tommy Franks, for those of you who aren't trackin') over a so-called 'military analyst' any day. I'm willing to bet not one of those 'analyst' guys has ever gone a day without a meal or a week without a shower before... they just know lines on paper, and that doesn't win wars, it just makes you good at computer games. Soldiers win wars... and the Field Artillery lets them.

Dave, thanks for sharing your thoughts and for your service to your country.

Sometimes it is very interesting to see the news in other parts of the world. I discovered that the Arabs that are upset about the Coalition of the Willing have found a target they feel safe attacking: Kuwait. The Kuwaiti government is...

waiting for a response to a formal complaint filed a day earlier against Libya after protesters stormed the Kuwaiti embassy in Tripoli and raised the Iraqi flag on the roof.

Elsewhere, the Kuwaiti embassy in Cairo received bomb threats on Monday and 12,000 Egyptian students mounted a protest outside the compound against the war.

Not only has this war divided Old Europe, it appears to be dividing the Middle East.

One of the French television networks is deliberately aiding the Saddam regime in creating anti-American propaganda (page 3). Before reading this and getting too furious with the French, keep in mind that we only know this because another French television network filmed the entire thing and revealed the deception.

TF1 viewers also got a closeup shot of a child with a bandaged head screaming with fear in Baghdad hospital. At virtually the same moment, France 2's audience saw a much wider angle showing the child in a hospital room filled with newsmen, lights, and microphones and the station's reporter - beware of reporters actually on the scene - saying that the child was screaming in terror at the commotion in what was an Iraqi propaganda set up.

Many thanks to the second French network for their integrity. May it pay off in increased ratings for you. Your politicians could learn from your example.

Many analysts have stated that the State of Iraq is currently operating as if it had no leader. Given the damage to the Iraqi regime's communication infrastructure and the fact that Saddam is either severely injured, dead, or remaining mostly silent while his forces are under attack, this is a valid conclusion. However, I believe the same could be said of Turkey. I will give some background on the Turkish situation while I summarize recent news.

Kurdistan is an area of the world that consists of parts of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and a bit of Syria. This area is not a government. A useful analogy for Americans is the area known as New England. While it consists of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; New England is not a sovereign entity. Imagine if the area of New England largely consisted of Kurds and that ethnic divisions were as important in the US as they are in most of the world. One might expect New England would wish for more autonomy, perhaps even desire to secede from the US if possible.

There are at least thirty million Kurds in Kurdistan. They are the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state. Like the Palestinians, they want their own state. As one would expect, the nations of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria do not wish to give up any land or sovereignty and have strongly opposed this. The situation has resulted in violence many times in all three nations (including Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds with weapons of mass destruction). One sometimes wonders where the "Peace" Activists are in this matter. There are almost four times as many Kurds as Palestinians and they share one of the same goals - Statehood.

The Turkish government fears an independent Kurdish government may arise from the northern part of Iraq. They do not want such a state on their border since they believe the new state would eventually want all of Kurdistan under its reign. The Kurds in Turkey would so desire, so this is an understandable concern. It is very important to keep this in mind when contemplating Turkish actions. There are also about a million ethnic Turks in Iraq which adds additional emotional context to Turkish considerations. In February, the Turkish military was finalizing plans to move 80,000 troops into Northern Iraq to accomplish three objectives. 1) To seize the rich oil fields in the area, 2) to protect the Turks in the area, and 3) to prevent the Kurds from forming their own state.

However, the Turkish government has been acting in a schizophrenic manner. The majority of their government voted to allow US troops to use Turkey as a launching base for a second front on Liberate Iraq war in exchange for massive amounts of economic support. Turkey is undergoing severe economic woes and could have used this support to revitalize their nation. However, despite the majority vote, the Turkish government did not have sufficient votes to pass the agreement under their laws. Eventually the US government withdrew their offer and decided not to enter Northern Iraq via Turkey.

The US has repeatedly and officially asked Turkey not enter Iraq. Germany and Belgium have also warned Turkey not to enter the war and even threatened to withdraw NATO's defense of Turkey and prevent Turkey from entering the EU should Turkey get involved.

Despite the requests from both the Coalition of the Willing and that of "Old Europe", Turkish troops entered Iraq on March 21 with 1,500 commandos. On March 22, Turkey denied this despite allied and media reports to the contrary. The Turkish government may have been unaware of the actions of their military. The current Turkish regime has only been in power for 4 months and their inexperience is clearly showing. However, on March 24, 2003, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan announced that "Turkish troops in Iraq would add to security and stability in the region." Somehow I find it difficult to trust the Turks in this matter, a people who may have even used some Kurds as mine detectors. In fairness, this was not proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

In response, the US has also speed up deployment of some US military resources to Northern Iraq. This is risky, since they have to travel via non-Turkish routes. On March 24, 2003, US forces officially arrived in North Iraq.Even before this, US forces had been aiding the Kurds in engagements against Saddam's forces in Northern Iraq.

The US government has stated from the beginning they planned for a united Iraq with the Kurds remaining part of a new, integrated, Iraqi government. Of course, it doesn't help when we accidentally drop bombs in Turkey. Fortunately, no one was hurt. However, this will not help improve relations that already have many problems

Communication between Turkish politicians and military officials and their U.S. counterparts have become so poor that U.S. officials are considering the use of spy satellites and other devices to track the movement of Turkish forces.

Assuming Turkey is acting logically, which is not certain, their actions show that they either do not trust the US to keep Iraq in one piece or they are simply acting opportunistically and hoping to grab the northern oil fields to revitalize their economy. The Turkish stock market and lira value, already at record lows, continued plunge to new depths after Turkey's cross into Iraqi territory.

I hope that Turkey will see reason and stay out of Iraq from this point on. In my opinion, this would be best for both the US and Turkey. Turkey's border concerns can be easily met by keeping a large force on their border without crossing into Iraq. If Turkey moves large forces into Iraq I believe their dream of joining the EU will be delayed for many years. Their businessmen (judging by their market) certainly want Turkey to stay out of the war. The US shares the goal of keeping a united Iraq and if this is truly Turkey's main goal, they should not reduce the chances of US success by risking a Kurdish/Turkish war in Northern Iraq.

The Command Post has a new url. The link at the top of Solport's main page has also been updated.

These two images are from the AP.  They spotted Saddam...

And some Iraqi soldiers wave at the AP journalists and attempt to surrender.

Reuters shows how the local soldiers decorate their vehicles...

...while this child offers Americans cigarettes (or may be attempting to sell them - Reuters was vague on the details).

Iraqi children talk to one of our soldiers and thank him for the candy.

And CBS provides an awesome view of B52s over Baghdad.  You can see why our military prefers to fight at night - darkness becomes light for the good guys.

I was listening to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's briefing and some clueless reporter asked him if the US military could have picked less targets and been more precise. Rumsfeld stated that

Every weapon was individually and specifically picked for its target. The direction that each weapon travels before it hits the target was carefully selected. Even the time of day was calculated to absolutely minimize the number of civilian casualties. This is the most precise military campaign ever waged.

Warfare in the information age, indeed.

Apple's future has looked bleak for years. Their market share has been below 5% of all PC sales for a long time. This means Intel (and even AMD) have much greater economies of scale than Motorola (which makes the PowerPC chip that Apple uses). And the advantages of these economies of scale have been making an impact. The best Apple processor costs much more than the equivalent PC processor and the best PC processors blow away their Apple counterparts. This is one of the reasons the Pixar (the computer animation shop that created Toy Story) has announced a switch to Intel hardware.

Motorola has no incentive to invest literally billions of dollars in a vain attempt to compete with Intel and AMD given the sparse market for Apple Computers. Indeed, Apple is lucky Motorola still produces PowerPC chips after Apple betrayed them (if you are not familiar with this history, Motorola had an agreement with Apple that they could make Apple clones; and Apple abruptly canceled the agreement after Motorola had made significant investments in this area). So how is Apple going to survive?

It looks like they have two ideas. According to John Dvorak; Apple will start using Intel hardware within the next 12 to 18 months. A switch to Intel hardware will then allow Apple to be hardware competitive for the first time in years and they will keep a level playing field since Microsoft will obviously stay on the Intel/AMD platforms. If Apple can pull it off, this is a very wise (and long-overdue) move.

Their second idea is to put Al Gore on their board of directors. While there are exceptions (e.g., Rush Limbaugh's organization uses Macs); most Mac users tend to be fall on the liberal side of the spectrum. It looks like Steve Jobs is well aware of this fact and is hopeful that Gore supporters will express their support with their future PC purchases.

According to the Fox News Ticker, our marines can even destroy Iraqi tanks with just machine guns.

Talk about propaganda! Now that has to really make any watching Iraqi soldiers quake.

According to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Uday, Saddam Hussein's oldest son, is suffering from a brain hemorrhage inflicted by a member of Saddam's Fedayeen. These Fedayeen are Iraq's version of Saddam’s special forces, so this is intriguing indeed.

Mosuah al-Nahrain in its website on Thursday quoted sources north of Iraq as saying that very tough and indecent orders, issued by Uday, who heads Saddam's Fedayeen, had provoked the conflict as the young an attacked Uday. Uday's bodyguards then beat the man to injury.

The website declined to give further comments.

My first impulse was to disbelieve this story and suspect that the brain hemorrhage was inflicted by the initial US attack. However, that does not make any sense. This story is much worse for the Iraqis. If some of his special forces are refusing to implement their orders, this shows that the psych-ops are showing results.

If you are looking for updates on the War, check out The Command Post. Michele and Alan have opened up this blog for the duration of the war and invited many bloggers, including yours truly, to post there. I think this is a good idea, and will place most of my war-related comments at their site.

Fast Response
There is a military cliche that generals prepare to fight the last war. Like most cliches, there is some truth to this. Organizations learn from experience and their experience is based upon past circumstances. However, this war is going to be unlike any other war before it and it shows amazing improvements in the US military's effectiveness at waging war. The rapid response allowed by the internet is revolutionizing business. It appears that communication advances are also having an impact on the military and that the US military is preparing for the wars of the future.

Last night, the US military called an "audible" and made a last minute change in plans. From all reports, the main offensive was not (and is not) scheduled to start for a few more days. However, the military apparently received an intelligence report stating that many senior Iraqi leaders, including Saddam Hussein, would be spending the night in a certain bunker. The US forces launched some Tomahawk cruise missiles to soften up the bunker and quickly followed up by dropping some "bunker busters" on them - special 2,000 pound bombs designed for penetrating bunkers.

The strike -- aimed at "decapitating" Hussein's regime -- was specifically aimed at Hussein, his two sons and other senior leaders of the Baath Party and Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, a senior Bush administration official said.

Saddam Hussein was on Iraqi TV about an hour after the attack to show he was still alive. While some in the Bush administration believe this may have been a prerecorded message, I believe the message was live. From everything I have read, Saddam takes as many pains to look good on camera as Tom Cruise (who is actually 5' 7" although you would never know it from his films). Yet last night he was wearing glasses, something I have never seen before. So I'd say he was just in a hurry to show his troops he was still alive.

The attempt was certainly worth while. Can you imagine if Saddam had been eliminated within hours of the deadline? As it was, he has to worry about his life each night. He may also be missing some of his key henchmen which will greatly reduce his effectiveness at responding to additional military threats.

I am very impressed with a military that can see an opportunity and quickly organize and implement an operation to exploit it. Tyrants all over the world may lose sleep over this demonstration of American power. Good.

Science and Public Policy
In general, most scientists prefer to do their experiments in a sealed laboratory where they can isolate their subjects from external influences. There is good reason for doing so as this allows scientists to test their theories without worrying if their results are actually due to another cause. However, too many scientists assume that their subjects laboratory behavior, under artificial conditions, equates to the real-world behavior under actual conditions.

For decades, scientists have assumed that most trees absorbed pollution and some folks have made decisions based upon this information. For example, Canada has asked for a "pollution credit" for its large forests under the convoluted Kyoto climate change accord. However, some scientists recently measured the amount of pollution absorbed by pine trees under more realistic conditions and found that when exposed to ultraviolet light (like that generated by the sun), pine trees actually create air pollution.

This new information should be a warning that while laboratory tests are very useful, realistic tests are also needed before any policy decisions are made upon their results.

The Loyal Opposition Speaks (hat tip Dean)
Now that a decision has been made, not only are the majority of Americans closing ranks around President Bush, even the majority of British voters (53%) now support him. Tony Blair's ratings are also trending upward. While all this time at the UN may have been a waste of time according to most Americans, I think the attempt was worth it. I expect we will see many dividends from the attempt, of which the political survival of Tony Blair is only the first.

Earlier today, I spoke of the Bitter Camp.  Well, I already received an email from a leftist in the UK.  Paul sent me a bunch of questions that an anti-American had created.  I'm sure the email was written long ago, but the fact it resurfaced today is no accident.

The answer to all of the author's anti-American questions are the US - at least according to the author.  Most of the question are on par with "Have you stopped beating your wife?" - that is, they were designed to have no defense.  However, despite the close-mindedness of the writer, I will attempt to answer each of these questions in a straightforward manner.

As you read the questions, note how the author tries to isolate the US.  This is similar to the liberal media's earlier attempts to present the opinions of France and Germany as those of Europe.  The author interchanges UN, Western, and G7 to try to make the US appear to stand alone.  The use of G7 is especially telling, it usually means that Russia, China, and India also disagree with the leftist author.

1) Which is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on over twenty different countries since 1945?

Answer:  The country that has liberated more countries than any other government in history.

I asked Drew, a friend of mine in California who studies military history, to list how many countries the US has liberated from WWII onward.  He suggested it would be easier to look at a map and just count the countries the US did not liberate or protect from conquest.  If we just looked at the past 20 years, he listed Serbia, Kosovo, Haiti, Kuwait, Panama, and Grenada off the top of his head.

Under President Bush, at a minimum we will be able to add Afghanistan and Iraq to this list.  I am proud that America is willing to spend the blood, sweat, tears, and money to overturn evil regimes over the objections of leftists who protest for a "peace" that keeps millions living in fear under brutal dictatorships. 

2) Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons to take the lives of thousands of civilian women and children?

Answer:  Many countries have taken the lives of their own civilians in the development of nuclear weapons.  But clearly the United States has been the only country to detonate nuclear weapons on enemy cities.  This is largely due to the fact that the United States was the first country to develop nuclear weapons.  Throughout history, the first people to develop any weapon have traditionally been the first ones to use it.  When these weapons were used, the decision makers did not understand all of the ramifications of radiation (for example, many of our own people were exposed to radiation from nuclear tests and later died of cancer).  Once all the repercussions of nuclear weapons were understood, Americans have worked hard to prevent their ever being used against civilians yet again.  The American nuclear arsenal has served as an effective deterrent to prevent any other country from using such weapons.

Despite my answer above, this is the only question that made me wince.   If I could go back in time and change history so that we did not use the bomb against Japan, I would.  However, countries are not perfect and mine has certainly made mistakes just like other countries.  For example, British forces were the first to use biological warfare in a despicable action against civilians.   By deliberately distributing blankets from those who died of small-pox to American Indians, British soldiers managed to kill more than 50% of many tribes during the French and Indian wars (1754-1767).  Yet I don't blame the current British government for this any more than I blame the current American government for the actions of a long buried Democratic President who gave the order to launch two nukes.

3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history?

I believe you are wrong about blaming this on the United States. I've seen this accusation a lot on the internet along with variations of some of these questions.  However, I don't believe it.  I believe this is an urban legend that got started when Imad Fayez Mugniyeh, a terrorist who built bombs, blamed the CIA for a bombing that killed his brother.

His brother, Jihad Mugniyeh, died in 1985 when a car bomb intended for Hezbollah leader Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah killed 75 people outside Fadlallah’s home in Beirut. Hezbollah blamed the CIA for the attack.

His other brother, Fuad Mugniyeh, died in December 1