It's a new strategy for the GOP: everyone loves the underdog. The party that currently holds sway over all three branches of our government will spend the next few weeks blaming the diminished returns of the American economy, the failed Road Map process in the Middle East, and the woeful state of American national security on their critics in a bid to fashion themselves as underdogs in the upcoming election. The President and his top advisers this past week framed critics of the administration - morally and intellectually confused adherents to the "blame America first" school of thought - as the chief cause of domestic and foreign policy failures.

In a stunning invocation of Godwin's Law, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld equated those who oppose the administration's handling of the War on Terror with Nazi appeasers and Communists sympathizers. It was an attempt to portray to the public a well-meaning administration hamstrung in its efforts to fight the good fight not by sheer incompetence and hubris, but by feckless naysayers who just don't "get it."

For the first time in six years the GOP is approaching the American voter like a ne'er-do-well spouse asking for just one more chance to make things right. Without a single successful venture to point to in six years of power the GOP is blaming everyone but themselves for failures under their watch.

Will it work? Can the election spin machine turn a brash-talking cowboy president into a sympathetic Joe just trying to do right by his heart? It's already started. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough - a former GOP member of Congress - led off the first salvo with his "Is Bush an Idiot?"(video) piece a couple of weeks ago. The normally hawkish Scarborough caught some flack for the piece but it served its purpose. Those inclined to defend the President did, and the undecided in the crowd stopped thinking of President Bush as world's only nuclear armed six-gun slinger and started to wonder if maybe folks were being too hard on the guy. Phase one was complete.

Phase two came with the announcement that more GOP Congressional seats than previously believed are up for grabs in this year's midterm election. These members of Congress don't need to associate themselves with the president or his administration - that's a losing proposition - they only need to follow the President's lead and attack their morally and intellectually confused opponents who either don't get it, or simply don't take threats to American national security seriously.

Which leads me to phase three: seriously. Expect to see this buzzword, or at least the concept, in more frequent use. The electioneers know they have a major problem with satirists like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Stephen Colbert(video). These commentators reach an audience of tens of millions of people showcasing the failures and ineptitude of the administration weekly. In the GOP underdog strategy, their impact will be marginalized by the notion that their dissent is a stumbling block to what might otherwise be successful GOP policies. Furthermore their criticisms will be wholly discounted not because they are without merit, but because they come from comedians out only for laughs. In short, these critics of the administration do not take the threats America faces seriously. The goal of this phase of the underdog strategy is to diminish, if not neutralize, the impact of any observations contrary to the GOP party line: stay the course, no matter what.

If you see the underdog strategy at work in your own state races post relevant links and your observations in the comments section below.

When criminals in this world appear,
And break the laws that they should fear,
And frighten all who see or hear,
The cry goes up both far and near for
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog!

Labels: Donald Rumsfeld, economy, FUD, George W. Bush, war on terror

This from the bat-shit crazy department (Hey I've got the black background going on, I might as well embrace it):

Rumsfeld has no eyes!

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has no eyes. The secretary made the startling revelation to the world today as he testified before Congress regarding the abuses and torture Iraqi prisoners have been subjected to under the U.S. led occupation.

"See here," said Rumsfeld affecting his most arrogant drawl, "I would have put an immediate end to these shenanigans had I seen any evidence of wrongdoing by U.S. service members." Rumsfeld then peered out over the rims of his glasses revealing the dark, empty eye sockets of a souless minion of evil. "But I don't have eyes!" the secretary cackled as members of Congress recoiled in shock.

For the public record, various media outlets captured the disturbing sight on film:
CNN


MSNBC


Fox News


The New York Times


The Washington Post


I knew the guy was evil, but this is ridiculous.

Labels: Donald Rumsfeld

A few months ago, during a White House visit by President Fox of Mexico, President Bush let slip a curious code name: Operation Desert Badger. The reference was part the President's reply when he was asked "...is it true, as your former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says, that you started planning for the invasion of Iraq within days of your inauguration? Do you feel betrayed? And should he have released those documents?"

In response, President Bush said "the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger, or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then, all of a sudden, September the 11th hit. And as the President of the United States, my most solemn obligation is to protect the security of the American people. That's my -- to me that's the most solemn thing an American President -- or any president -- must do. And I took that duty very seriously."

So here we have one of the President's famous instances of equating the September 11th attacks with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. But there's something else. Tonight CNN reports "the secret plan Operation Desert Badger called for escalating air strikes within four to eight hours of a shootdown [of a US/UK fly-over]. Pentagon sources say a long list of targets across the country would be hit, crippling Iraqi air defenses and command and control. The plan went far beyond the Clinton administration's 1998 Operation Desert Fox, which hit 100 targets in four days...And so we were fashioning policy along those lines...One defense official familiar with the plan says, "If a plane got shot down, that was the trigger, we were going in." Over time, the source said, Operation Desert Badger evolved into a more robust plan for attacking the regime...The president would have quickly decided whether to take the next step, approving a small number of ground troops to secure key areas. At the time, only a few thousand troops were in nearby Kuwait. Sources tell CNN Operation Desert Badger was not a plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power...Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says the new options were justified by the threat..."We packaged them, we pre-cleared them with the president, and we were cocked and ready to do a variety of different things in the event something occurred that fit one of those possible unfortunate possibilities.""

Desert Badger was a planned retaliation against the Iraqi regime. One that went far beyond Desert Fox. A decapitation strike perhaps? Was Saddam one of the command and control targets? If so, with all this planning and emphasis on Saddam and Iraq ready to be "triggered" by something "that fit one of those possible unfortunate possibilities", can the Administration still say with a straight face that it didn't push Dick Clarke to fabricate a connection between the September 11th attacks and Iraq?

Labels: 9/11, Desert Badger, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, iraq, Mexico, saddam hussein, Vincente Fox

From Fortune, via Metafilter:

Rummy's North Korea Connection

What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.

Remember kids, profits increase when US body bags are waiting in the wings...

Labels: Donald Rumsfeld, North Korea

A few years ago – OK it was more like 10 – I was a freshman in college. (We just didn’t believe them when they said the time would fly). I was in a bizarre little class of 10 or 12 students entitled Freshman Seminar: Contemporary Japanese History and Culture. I say it was bizarre because by the end of the second semester of my sophomore year I had exhausted the University’s entire catalog of courses regarding Asian Studies; At the time, URI was still very much a Euro-centric East Coast State University – a bit backward really.

I took the course because it fit nicely into a schedule I had thrown together at the last minute (i.e. the day classes started), but also because it complemented the Japanese 101 course I had signed up for to satisfy my language requirement (Spanish 303 at 8 am MWF, or Japanese 101 at 2 pm TR – it’s a no brainier really).

The course was – after several years of Asian Studies at various institutions - actually a decent, but slightly dated, introduction to the cultural identity of Japan. Any legitimate understanding of the topic requires a lengthy study of history, geography, anthropology, art, political science, language, and philosophy, but this odd little course at URI served its purpose well.

In my final paper for the class, I tried to tackle the difficult subject of competitive spirit - as it exists in all cultures – and its specific manifestations in modern day America and Japan. (That's what I was attempting to write about, but I’m sure the thesis looked more like: “The Japanese are cool.”).

In America – go to any ball park on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and watch your neighborhood sports teams play a game – and listen. What are you likely to hear from the stands? “Be number one!” In Japan – at the time I wrote my original paper anyway – you’d hear something that translates roughly to “Do your best!”

In America, being called a “loser” is perhaps one of the worst insults imaginable. This is not necessarily true for other cultures in which doing one's best – regardless of the outcome – is a more significant endeavor than simply winning. It’s a subtle difference, but one that deserves exploration considering our current situation in Iraq.

Militarily, there’s no doubt that the US will “win” this war. No comparison exists between US and Iraqi forces. None. However – as simple as this fundamental truth appears – it all goes to shit once we move beyond the limited American cultural instinct of applying concepts of “win” and “lose” to a conflict. Who says the Iraqis are in the same ball game we are? What if not a single Iraqi soldier is trying to win at all? What if each one of them is simply trying to cause as much damage as possible?

When you sit down across from an opponent at chess, or tic-tac-toe for that matter, it’s not very difficult to play that opponent to a draw – even if they’re a “better” player than you. If you have no intention of winning from the start, you can turn the game into a very frustrating exercise for your advarsary; Especially if instead of a single match, you play a series of long, slow matches. It’s obvious that the superior player will win in the end, but who’s counting the pawns?

In reading about what’s likely to become “The Siege of Baghdad,” I’ve had to ask myself, what is an acceptable end-game for Saddam Hussein at this point? He’s not in this battle to actually win – that option doesn’t exist for him. The best he can do is inflict as much damage to US forces as possible, and hope that world and US public opinion will eventually further hamstring the Pentagon’s efforts to fight this war the way they want and need to in order to minimize the loss of American lives. This is, of course, monstrous – but all’s fair.

In my mind, it’s logical to ask what the magic number is. That being the number of US casualties Saddam Hussein’s forces must inflict before his death for this entire operation to be considered a costly “failure” on the part of the United States. In other words, how many US lives will it take before history regards this war as Vietnam II, instead of Gulf War II?

Numerically, I think it’ll take far less than the number of lives lost in Vietnam. I also think it will take far less time. The stakes are much, much higher here. The US is using 21st century technology: a constellation of intelligence satellites, precision guided bombs, special forces, the best of the best of the best…against troops employing soviet era, rusting, dilapidated armaments.

So far, we know that the US troops on the ground have had some difficultly. It’s widely believed that Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration wanted to not only do this "on the cheap,” but also to show how much the US could do with so little effort. The plan was to show the entire Axis of Evil how easy it is for the US to cut through a nation like a hot knife through butter – just like Afghanistan. North Korea and Iran are watching this unfold just as attentively as China was watching the first Gulf War. This is an international parade and review of the United States top weaponry and intelligence capabilities – every fuck-up and short-coming is being noted by military and diplomatic analysts world-wide. The precise outcome of this war will have serious long-term geo-political consequences.

So what’s the magic number? How many Americans need to die before the American public begins to loose confidence in its Discovery Channel education on the methods of modern warfare? 1,000? 2,500? 5,000? So far the count is at 78, and the siege of Baghdad has yet to begin.

Republican Guard forces have been steadily falling back to Baghdad. Behind them they’ve left skeleton crews and heavy armaments that have been “melting” away against the superior US offensive. These forces have not surrendered, nor have they been added to casualty lists. Where are they? A “standoff” in Baghdad appears eminent.

If the Bush administration pushes our troops into Baghdad, the odds of our “winning” this war in the history books get a whole lot worse. But what are the alternatives?

1. Decisive military victory: Saddam and his top officials get taken out one-by-one or en masse by special forces or surgical missile strikes before US regulars must enter the city limits. This is an on-going operation, and has thus far proven very difficult. This type of operation consumes vast amounts of intelligence resources, and risks high profile US casualties and POWs for the Iraqi regime to parade as propaganda – not to mention the potential of loss of sensitive materials (i.e. frequency lists, maps, etc.) or equipment carried by these personnel which could be later exploited by Iraqi forces should even one of the missions fail.

2. Siege, and diplomacy. The city is surrounded. Water, electricity, and food supplies are cut-off. Another ultimatum is issued calling for the head of Saddam and his top officials. Exile might also be put back on the table. At best this might result in an internal coup which has failed to materialize as of yet. This strategy commits US forces to entering the city eventually should the plan fail. It also has a time limit – the “humanitarian crisis” clock will begin ticking the moment the city’s water supplies are turned-off.

3. Shock and awe. Remember this old hat? Well it’s still an option. In fact – although I might be giving too much credit to the administration here – the battle plan up until this point, including the “setbacks,” may have all been part of a scheme to draw Saddam and his forces off-guard before the final implementation of this ambitious strategy. With several tens of thousands of US troops on the “threshold of the city,” shock and awe has a legitimate chance of striking fear and terror into troops stationed in Baghdad. A mass surrender at this point would scuttle any of Saddam’s plans. The problem is this: Do we have enough bombs left for shock and awe? Reports have been trickling out that the US forces are running out of costly precision missiles and bombs. Although it’s worth noting that we haven’t yet seen the use of the MOAB/“Big Blue” super bombs touted in the days before the initial strike of the war. Has the administration been saving them until this point? Will it matter if they have?

I’m sure there are more options available to our military planners as our troops approach Baghdad. These are just the ones that came to the top of my head this morning. Time will tell in the end, but I sincerely hope that the current strategy of a “final battle inside the capital” is not what we will see unfold. Street-to-street fighting in Baghdad will be like sending our troops into an urban warfare meat grinder, or perhaps even a chemical trap. All the while, Saddam and his forces will keep-on playing for a draw, and the rest of us will be left counting the pawns.

Labels: china, Donald Rumsfeld, iraq, Japan, saddam hussein

I am alive, and back on my ass - soon to be on my feet - after surgery this week. Trapped in a hospital without Internet access for a week damn near killed me, but now I'm back. I'm still highly medicated, and I can think of no better time than now to start posting to this blog again. Call it a restart.

Speaking of which, how about that war? WTF? I'm out of it for a little while and everyone starts having delusions of grandeur.

Donald Rumsfeld wants a do-over? His strategy has backdoored our troops who are now entrenched the middle of the desert, without supplies, surrounded by hostile forces. Can anyone tell me how this can get any worse?

Let's pretend we don't know anything about Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or Northern Ireland for a moment. No wait, I forgot, we can't; our troops are fucked, and it's all the Bush Administration's fault. It was bad enough that they got us into this war by screwing-up diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq without war, now they're practically admitting that their grand strategy was a bluff, and that thousands of US lives depend on the re-establishment of secure supply lines throughout the entirety of country about the size of California...Without over-flight rights. Yeah, that shouldn't take too long. All the while there will be body bags coming home.

So now what? How the hell do we get our troops home? We have two options.

1. Call a cease-fire: Pullout now. Go to the UN and apologize. Send Rumsfeld, Perle, and Cheney - or any other assortment of Administration officials - down the river. That's right - send them to jail. They screwed this up, and the only way to keep it from getting worse is to crack a few eggs - just like they're willing to do with our troops. Either it's these millionaire bastards going to The Hague and eating bon bons with other moronic nation-ruling fat cats, or it’s our troops in the desert over several months of uncertain conflict. Sorry, but if we can simultaneously pull out of the war, rebuild relationships with the world community on a diplomatic level, and throw a bone to the Muslims of the world who are none too fucking happy right now, I say do it. If this is horribly unpalatable to red-blooded, freedom loving Americans, then there is always option two.

2. Do it. Fire Rumsfeld. Appoint Norman Schwarzkopf Secretary of Defense, and allow the Pentagon to do its job: fight this war. Congress gives the troops every red cent they need to take Iraq, and more importantly gives them permission to take Iraq by any means necessary. You want this war over quick, then you damn well better be willing to kill every male Muslim in the Middle East old enough to even think about fighting back. Black-ops, CIA operations, drug and weapons swaps, black market economic destabilization, and old school Iran-Contra style deception. I'm talking about a police state that covers the entirety of the Middle East. Oh, someone from Iran was found in Iraq with a gun? Guess what pal you just got yourself a problem with the big dog. This of course will lead to mass civilian casualties in several nations and worldwide hatred for the United States and everything we claim to stand for - but we'll have won the war!

There is no middle ground here. There can be no appeasement. Either we take responsibility for our actions as a nation, and fire a couple of big names from the administration, make examples of them, and call it a day, or we fight this war as if our very survival on the face of this planet depended on it. Anything else will only lead to more delay and more death. The lives of our fellow Americans are worth far more the lives of the scum that have sent them into this war.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. And please hope for a swift and just end to this horrible tragedy.

Labels: bloggers, blogging, Donald Rumsfeld, iraq

The United States continues to ignore diplomatic options in its handling of the North Korean problem. Time and again our administration has ignored pleas from the international community and policy experts within our own government to engage North Korea in a meaningful dialogue before the situation escalates beyond non-military resolution.

Today, as the U.S. makes the most of the North Korean intercept of one of our reconnaissance planes - which is a much more common occurrence than most of the American public likely realizes - the administration has further isolated North Korea by deploying long range bombers to Guam.

Add this to the fast track deployment of an untested missile defense system on our west coast, and the administration’s long term policy plans for the region begin to come into focus. But there’s something here that just doesn’t sit right for me: Guam.

I understand that these are long range bombers, but why Guam? Why not Japan? Hell, why not South Korea? If the administration is honestly attempting to intimidate North Korea into compliance with the non-proliferation treaty while refusing to debate a non-aggression pact, why not put those bombers right in North Korea’s backyard?

I have a couple of thoughts on this.

First, it may be that Japan doesn’t want to play host to these U.S. forces due to fears of North Korean retribution. This makes sense, but seeing as how Japan would probably be a target of North Korean aggression should a conflict occur anyway, I find it unlikely that Japan would refuse the back-up protection.

Secondly, it may be that the administration is sensitive to inadvertently touching off a conflict with an increasingly skittish North Korea by pushing too hard, too fast. Given the complete lack of subtly in the administration’s past policy calls, I doubt this as well.

That leaves us with a third possibility – the one I consider most likely: North Korea’s missile technology is much more advanced than our administration is willing to admit. If this is true, and targets in South Korea and Japan are within range, then Guam is the only place we can put our bombers.

This would also explain an unusual story from the Korea Times today that stated that a warhead launched in a North Korean missile test was found in Alaska. If true, this has dramatic implications for our current foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region.

I’d like to believe that the Alaska story is a bit of over-zealous reporting on the part of the South Korean press, but the Guam thing is really bugging me.

I sincerely hope that I am very, very wrong on this. If I’m not, and the administration continues on its present course, there will be a nuclear crisis in a matter of months. It doesn’t matter which nation is the ultimate victim of that crisis; it may be the U.S., it may be Japan or South Korea, it may even be North Korea itself. The bottom line is that it doesn’t have to happen at all.

Unless our administration pulls its head out of its ass, expect to become well versed in the economic consequences of fighting a two-front war in the very near future.

Labels: aei, Donald Rumsfeld, neocon, new american century, North Korea

For those of you on the West Coast:

Soon you will be safe and secure in your homes, your schools, and your shopping malls thanks to the Bush administration’s plan to bypass the testing and approval process for America’s missile defense shield. If you’re worried about having untested missile defense systems stationed throughout your cities – don’t. After all, Donald Rumsfeld says we don’t need no stinking tests!

This system is comprised of many, many little “friendly missiles,” which seek and destroy big “bad guy missiles.” Of course, without testing, we’ll never know how likely it would be for one of our “friendly missiles” to malfunction, and then seek and destroy the nearest “bad guy home,” “bad guy school,” or “bad guy shopping mall” in the area. Or will we?

This whole thing stinks. The Pentagon doesn’t even want this system, and our peers on the Pacific Rim (China and Russia) believe that the introduction of a missile shield can only serve to destabilize the delicate geopolitical balance in the area.

Since these systems are designed to take out missiles and not fuel laden passenger planes flown by terrorists, we know the missile defense shield is not meant to protect us from al-Qa’ida.

So that leaves North Korea. The starving, frigged, Stalinist wasteland who just happens to be capable of producing a nuclear weapon. Despite all the media fanfare, we’ve known about that capability since 1997.

North Korea has yet to field test an operational ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. (Much like we have yet to field test a missile shield that could protect the U.S.). Are they really a threat? You bet your ass. But that’s why we have diplomacy$.

We offered them an aid package as a bribe a few months ago. They rejected it. It might be worth noting that we offered them 90 Million in aid (notice the M there). That wouldn’t be enough to buy heating oil for one of their cities through the harsh winter.

We walked away from the table after that. In turn, they re-started their nuclear power plants. North Korea is about as cold as Maine, I can easily imagine attempting to live through the winter without heating oil or electricity. I’d last about week. Take away food and clean water…Well, you can see North Korea’s predicament.

Meanwhile, a hungry, freezing, armed North Korea watches the administration begin shoveling Billions of U.S. tax dollars onto ships bound for Turkey, Africa, and Eastern Europe – buying their support for our war in Iraq. North Korea is still in the cold after all these months. Yet instead of engaging them we shut them out with our missile defense shield. If we’re not willing to deal$ with North Korea now, then we will have to deal with them later.

Labels: Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, missile defense, national security, North Korea