There Goes My Brilliant Idea

Somewhat to my surprise, Israel has declared that it won't intervene in Gaza following its takeover by Hamas. The reason this comes as a surprise to me is Hamas is backed by Iran and Syria, who also support Hezbollah. Furthermore, tensions between Syria and Israel have risen to the point where some believe there might be war between the two countries this summer. If that is indeed the case, it would be prudent for Israel to attempt to secure itself against an attack from Hamas in retaliation to Israel engaging Hezbollah and/or Syria in combat, avoiding a two-front war. Furthermore, it is likely that Israel would receive political cover for intervening in Gaza from some unlikely sources, namely Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, who are concerned over Iran's growing influence in the region and would want to see Iran's hand weakened strategically by the loss of the newly-acquired Gaza strip and politically by a humiliating loss at the hands of the Zionists.

As long as Hamas and Fatah were fighting each other in the Gaza Strip, it was in Israel's best interest just to let them kill each other, but now that a winner has emerged, some sort of engagement is needed. If Fatah had emerged victorious, a diplomatic solution was not inconceivable (even if it was unlikely), but with Hamas' triumph in Gaza, it will only be a matter of time before Hamas consolidates its power in Gaza and turns its attention to Israel. Israel would do well to act to limit the danger posed by Hamas' control of Gaza, and that necessitates military action.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I Have Only One Question

With or without missiles?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Media Bias? Probably.

Jules Crittenden has some interesting casualty numbers from Iraq. They're interesting not because they somehow disagree with figures for the deaths of U.S. troops or Iraqi civilians in Iraq, but because numbers like this have not shown up in any story about Iraq in the reporting of any major news organization (including that redoubt of "conservative" journalism, Fox News). They are figures for the number of terrorists killed or wounded in Iraq since January of this year:

Chuck Simmins of TDW had been toiling away diligently, recording the deaths of terrorists as reported by MNF-I flaks. Turns out, they weren’t reporting them all. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno had a press conference recently, largely ignored by the press, in which he reported 3,184 terrorists killed since January 2007, and another 1,018 wounded. Simmins took that number, subtracted the ones he had already logged to avoid duplication, and then averaged them out over the last six months. Turns out our soldiers are killing terrorists at a rate of up to 10 to 1.

So, in the past five-plus months, nearly as many terrorists have been killed as U.S. troops have been in the past four years, two and a half months. One of the reasons I think support for the war has fallen as much as it has is that reporting the cost of soldiers' and Iraqi civilians' lives and terrorist attacks in conjunction with the benefits of a messy political process, which have been spotty. I have a very hard time believing that people's opinion of the situation would be so pessimistic if U.S. casualties were consistently juxtaposed with terrorist/militia casualties because such numbers make it clear that the terrorists are paying a heavy price to inflict casualties upon American troops. This is something Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar have recognized, which is why they're siding more and more with the Americans (along with the fact that al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed their hand).

Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite militias (all funded, trained and supplied by Iran and/or its proxy, Syria) are no match for the American military, and numbers like this prove it. There is no way the United States can lose this war militarily. The only way we can lose is if we lose the political will to continue fighting. The terrorists, as well as Iran and Syria, have recognized this and have carried out attacks designed to have maximum political, not military, impact, and they have succeeded in undermining support for a war that, by any objective measure, the United States cannot lose. What is unfathomable is that most of the American media and many political figures in the United States have either fallen for this gambit or used it to further their own political ends to the detriment of the American war effort. Also, for reasons stated here, I think this has had the ironic effect of increasing civilian casualties in Iraq.


Hat Tips: The Corner, Instapundit

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why Is This Happening?

One of the arguments meant to mollify conservatives who object to the amnesty bill working its way through the Senate was that it would lead to an increased percentage of Hispanic voters joining the Republican party. Apparently that's not the case.

Powered by ScribeFire.

How Bad Is It in Cuba?

Even the brothels are closing:

This does not mean that those still in Cuba are acquiescent or happy. They are far poorer than their eastern European counterparts were in 1989: the average wage, at $20 a month, can barely feed a single person for a couple of weeks. You cannot spend any length of time in Havana without noticing the lack of food for the majority of Cubans. The mother of a friend, an old lady who lived in one tiny rotting room in a former brothel with her son, gets by selling matchboxes to her neighbours, having stolen them from the factory where she worked. Another acquaintance keeps pigs on her balcony and sells pork to a few locals. The luckier ones sell cigars or taxi rides to foreigners. An elite work in hotels.

I also love the contrast between Cuba and the U.S. implied by that last sentence. In Cuba, hotel workers are considered elite. In the U.S. hotel worker tends to be one of those "jobs Americans won't do.," so we hire illegal immigrants to work in our hotels (unless the job requires English proficiency).

Powered by ScribeFire.