Celucci: On n'est pas cave!

Je sais que je suis en rétard du discours que Cellui- Ambassadeur américan au Canada- qui nous réproche le Canada pour ses decisions de ne pas appuyer la Coalition de volontiers et nous menace de façon vague de represailles. Daniel Drezer a bien ">articulé mes sentiment à ce sujet.

Néanmoins, j'aimerai aller un peu plus loins et rappeler à Celluici que l'appui se mérite dans une démocratie. Dans le cas d'Iraq je n'étais jamais persuadé du danger à l'égard d'armes de destruction massive même si les comportament irakien a laissé des personne raisonables à conclure que le régime cacherait quelque chose. Par contre, je trouvais beaucop plus cohérent que le causus belli résidait du fait que les Irakien n'ont jamais accomplies leurs obligations sus Resolutions 679 et 681 qui l'ONU imposa.

En fait, les dirgéants ont toujours agi de telle mauvaise foi que celle-ci constituait ipso facto une contravention du cessez-le-feu et donc nécessairement une justification à intervenir. Les Américains ont commis une grave erreur c'était leur impatience. Je ne nie pas que la trahsion des Français avait aggravé les tension innécessairement, mais la diplomatie américaine a toujours donné l'impression d'être vraiment amateure.

En outre, je ressentais les menances de Celluci. Il est très au courant que aucunement l'administration Bush metterait en péril le commerce transfrontière entre les deux pays. Adopter une politique qui nuiserait ce commerce-là aggravera la recession américaine. On est de voisins géographiques et on devra trouver de façon de se cotoyer de nouveau après la guerre.

Bruce and the Flitters: a Canadian perspective on the war

No Bruce and the Flitters isn't the name of some folk rock group from Canada. Bruce's blog is one of the great site to get a Canadian perspective on the war. Bruce is a reserve officer stationed in Toronto. So he's quite familiar with the Anglopsheric method of warfare and can explain to the civilians what's going as well as casting a critical look at the inevitable spin.

Flitters are the regular participants at Bruce's discussion forum. The debates are lively but civil. I visit Bruce's site as a complement to the Command post and Winds of change Those three sites provide with comprehensive coverage of the military aspects of the war. Bruce's site has the additional advantage that he provides a Canadian perspective to the war and that of a soldier as well.

I just don't have enough words to say about Bruce's site except that it's highly recommended and well worth visiting the site regularly.

John i Antonio:

John ha escrit un article que em llueix. Es molt d'agraïr però francament no el mereix. John, Antonio et jo no ens esterem mai d'acord sobre la política catalana ni el rol de la llengua catalana endins d'Espanya i afora.

Tanmateix, a part d'aquesta difèrencia político-ideològica, John i jo compartim algunes coses en comú. Per exemple, ambdós compartim la perspectiva que els EE UU no es el centre del Mal. John per que es ciudatà estadaunidenc I jo perque visc tant aprop del país que moltes opinions europees es basen en ignoràcia volguda a vegades. Ho entenc que John sigui més vehement en la seves opinions; també perderia la pacència que es tan obvi i palès que els catalans i els espanyols opinien sense gairebé saber de què.

L'únic que puc dir de la meva part es quan critico els americans- siguin de l'estat o la gent current- faig el posible que expliqui que es que em molesta, d'on vé i proposar soluciones si n'es de possible. Afortunadament, tothom pot ignorar-les però almenys les critíques i les solucions es basen amb una apreciació dels fets I tenen cap I peus. Es molt fàcil de peixar for a el tinter envers tant els americans com als europeus.

France and the Americans: don't forget the war on terrorism

Den Beste wrote a lengthy article analyzing how the French are both an enemy and the biggest loser of the war after Saddam and his regime. It's all well and good to blather on about how France will see retribution the like have never been seen, a total economic boycott of its good and services throughout the world and America will ensure France's permanent marginalization.

Except that there's still the war on terrorism and France has valuable assets and experience that the Americans will need some time in the future. As good as Echelon is, it can't penetrate cells; nor read body language nor gain psychological insights about the terrorists or the money trails from the bankrollers and so on. Eventually the American administration will have to swallow its distaste and deal with the French.

Obviously such working relationships will be limited, professional and quite cool with neither side really opening sharing what they know. Damn shame because there'll be an attack in which both sides had the pieces but the distrust between the 2 countries prevented an avoidable operation. Once again the blame will just deepen the distrust and give the terrorists a major advantages.

Just a friendly reminder that demonizing the French over the Iraqi campaign is blinding everyone to another really important, ongoing effort.

Strange way of showing detriment: America, Britian, France and Germany

I came across this article by Anatole Kaletsky about the winners and losers. On the one hand, he states quite forthrightly who the losers are. France, of course being everyone's favourite scapegoat du jour, will suffer permanent obsolescence in its technological, aerospace and defense sectors; however, Kaletsky towards the end of his article states that a weakened Europe doesn't benefit America and Britian. Funny way of showing such concern. Permanently crippling France's technological industries or downgrading commercial relations with Russia doesn't strike me as insightful policy to encourage a strong trans-Atlantic relationship.

Indeed, when I hear of such talk of retribution by the Europeans and Americans, I become exceptionally soured. Towards the Americans, because I just hiss why don't you just publically support LePen or his successor and be done with it? Towards the Europeans, I just spit out why don't you reform your societies and open yourselves up to new ideas and inovations?

As much as they may loathe each other at this particular moment, both continents need each other. They share similar values and do care about the same things. Fisting each other resolves nothing but aggravates the deep distrust.

Guess Al-Qu'ida did succeed in one of the most important areas: dividing the West into weakened constituent parts.

One last thought, why won't Turkey be heavily sanctioned than the others? Why are there so many people looking for mans to get the country off the hook for its decision? The Turks messed up American war plans during the conflict. I myself am unpersuaded by Ledeen's article that France and Germany threatened to veto Turkey's entry into European Union. The Americans could've easily countered with a NAFTA type free trade deal. After all, aren't France and Germany supposed to be marginalized, unimportant countries in the scheme of things? Further, the Turkish politicians faithfully reflected their constituents' views on the war. So I fail to see this obsession by some American commentators to excuse Turkey's decision and given them a pass because they were inexperienced or that Germany and France threatened the country or whatever else. Let's not patronize the Turkish politicians but hold them to the same standards as other democratic politicians.

Les curateurs americains de l'Irak post-Saddam

J'ai recontré cet article des 'administrateurs' américain (moi je préfère les nommer curateurs- plus précis d'un point de vu juridique)Je me demande où sont les Britanniques? Blair a été- et demeure, le plus fidel allié des Américans. Il les a appuis pas pour des raisions cyniques ni pour aggrandir le rôle de son pays mais parce qu'il croit sincèrement de la justesse de la position américaine. Donc, au moins fais un Anglais, le député- vice-curateur selon mon jargon.

Le même conseil s'applique aux Australiens, les Espagnols et les autresqui ont activement aidé dans la guerre. Je ne dis pas que tous les pays devront siéger aux hautes instance de la curatelle d'Iraq mais au moins des positions d'influence et d'envegure.

Cris Krause: n'ets de repsuliu

To the Canadian bloggers: can we quit bashing each other please?

I came across fellow Canadian blogger's Stud Lee's blog via Charles Joshnson's. I decided to visit Stud's site and it's an interesting site to visit- though he'll have to do something about the backgound colour and small fonts.

I agree with some of his articles but not all. What bugged me just a tad was Stud's comment wishing Canada's continued kinship without the French and Liberal influnece. He's quite right about the latter but not the former. As someone who lives in Quebec, I'm absolutely, totally fed up with the turgid French bashing that too many Anglophones and Anglospherists engage in. As I complained at Charles' Quebec is no more monolithic in its opinions and outlook than other regions of the Western world. I've always cautiously supported the war. My main complain is that the Bush administration really mishandled the pre-war diplomatic effort. Powell's reticence to carry out shuttle diplomacy before Resolution 1441 was written and the subsequent crisis will be regadred by future historians as a serious misjudgement. I'm not letting France off the hook. Yet it's far too facile to heap the exclusivity of blame onto France. Further, I never thought the weapons of mass destruction theme was persuasive. I concluded that Saddam's 12 years of obstruction sufficed to starte there to build the case.

So I'm in a minority in Quebec. Nonetheless, like Stud, I was quite disappointed by Chrétein's refusal to support the war. He could've sent the JTF-2 soldiers but didn't. I'm just as irked as anyone else by crass volte-faces and his unsurprising softening of his antiwar position now that the war is going very well.

Nonetheless, I do wish the Anglophone Canadian bloggers would quit bashing the Quebecois in order to establish their bona fides with the Americans. In fact, I deeply resent the embarrassed attitude as if Quebec were some bastard kid who had the bad taste to show up at a family reunion. For someone, who struggles from viewing the Anglosphere as essentialist voguing and is a friendly skeptic of the idea, the Quebec/Francophone bashing only resuscitates my original hunch about the Anglosphere not as a network but as a balloon with which to puff up Anglophone accomplishments as the universe's guiding light.

Quebec is an integral part of the Anglosphere and has contributed as much as a New England town hall meeting. In any case, can we Canadian blogger call a truce and not bash each other?

One last thing, enough of the snivelling about how we're so embarrassed at being Canadians, ashamed of the political parties, apologetic about our institutions. Shit! Let's have more a lot more pride about ourselves. We come across as so pathetic and lame; no wonder the Americans can't respect us.

Let me be the first to welcome Stud to the blogosphere and look forward to his future posts. His blog will be added to my blog list when its updated and I encourage my readers to visit Stud. I definitely will.

The hospital and the chemical suits: Iraqi psycops?

Yesterday, I read and heard on the news that Coalition forces captured a hospital. Inside was abandoned equipment where some were chemical suits and gas masks. Coalitions forces are very concerned about the growing dangers of chemical attacks. I won't criticize or pooh-pooh the threat; nonetheless, could the fact that the masks and suits were issued be an example of Iraqi psycops?

The Administration and the media have presented reasonable grounds that perhaps the Iraqis have chemical weapons. What if the Iraqis didn't but decided to unnerve Coalition soldiers by issuing anti-chemical equipment to their troops. Thus if the Iraqi soldiers were captured or equipment abandoned, the Coalition soldiers would freak out; hence slowing down the tempo of the armoured advanced.

Again, I won't denigrate the fear at all. In fact I share some concerns but not to the same extent as the Coalition forces.

Iraqis dress in Coalition uniforms: Operation Grief

I listened to CN and there's a growing fear that some Iraqi troops are dressed in Coalition uniforms to trick Coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians that might rebel. Dressing in the enemies' uniform is nothing new- Otto Szorsky and a group of SS soldiers dressed themselves in captured American clothing and drove some jeeps. The mission was called Operation Grief. The idea was to wreck havoc by giving false direction, killing soldiers, prisoner snatches etc.

The East Germans had an entire motor rifle division (40th) dressed as both an American National guard unit (the American left behind so many M 16 rifles in Saigon that it was enough to supply a division's worth) and a German reserve unit. After the fall of the Berlin wall, this shadowy group disappeared. The Soviet with their Spetnatz also adopted this trick.

Mind you dressing in the uniform of the opposing army makes you a spy/saboteur thus subject to immediate execution if captured under the Geneva conventions and the unwritten customs of war. That's what happened to Szorsky's men. It's not illegal to wear a helmet or a hat or a jacket underneath of the opposing uniform while wearing your own uniform. That's an acceptable ruse to give the appearance, at a distance, of being a 'friendly.' If the enemy soldiers are killed or captured in the subsequent fight. Too bad; you should've been more vigilant.

Shock and awe: the origins

For those who wonder where the term shock and awe came from here's the
link to the free HTML version of Harlan Ulmann's book
Recently, Ulmann wrote an article on the concept of shock and awe subject

Thanks goes to blogger Eamonn Fitzgerald
I want to recommend to my readers that you visit his site. Eamonn always writes interesting articles and the citations from diaries of famous and not so-famous are a real treat.

Some random question about the war's conduct

Yesterday I listened to CNN and I have some additional questions about the war's conduct. Why does CNN fixate on whether or not Saddam is alive or not? Frankly I don't care. Even if he's alive; the important goal is to cut off all means of communications because if he so much as flicks a switch he gets to eat a big Pig. That's Tom Clancy's name for the JSOW because in English, a sow is the female of the pig. So much cooler than Storm shadow- sounds like a video game about ninjas.

Another thing, how home the Americans haven't dropped that new daisy cutter bomb on the abandoned Apache? You'd think that the Americans would ensure that none of their hi tech equipment/weapons fall into enemy hands. Mom and dad think it's because the American have no clue where the helicopter is

Where are the A 10s? Given the engagement this morning that cost a downed helicopter and the intense AA fire, the A10s were designed specifically to survive Soviet/Warsaw pact AA fire. Further, A 10s are real morale crackers, the GAU 8 30 mm cannon alone is capable of blowing up every tank in the Iraqi arsenal. Combined with unguided rockets and precision missiles like HELLFIRE carried under the wings, the Republican guards would remember just how devastating the A10s are.

Yet more questions

So Jordan closed its airspace to Coalition planes. OK does this decision signify that in the post war period, Jordan will be shut out of any reconstruction. Or is the decision simply a relaiztion of the political reality: the population is so enflamed that it's best to seal like like a pressure cooker and let the steam out gradually?

How dirty will the Ba'ath party and the feedeyen pistoleros fight? My own view is that they'll fight in the best of the Arab warrior tradition- I'm not insulting the Arabs but they do do have their own way of war. That war tradition consists in hit and run raids (raizzas) attrition, ruses, use of hostages (today we call them human shields; the older name is more forthright) humilation, torture and murder of prisoners etc. That war tradition has its own rationality and logic. It's perverted because all these characteristics violate our own war tradition- the Western. Further the Arab way of war is self-defeating. Sure it might intimidate those who fight within that tradition but all it does is bred a cycle of resentment and revenge. At least with the Western way of war, the enemy is obliterated and the war ends.

Just how much of a strategic setback was Turkey's foot dragging refusal to authorize transit rights of its land and airspace to the Americans? At some blogs, I read it'll take 72 hours to disembark the equipment and 96 hours total for the troops to be flown from Texas. Shouldn't they be there already to meet with equipment? Will the Coalition forces use the new daisy cutter bomb? I hope not unless there's no choice; yet, I have no qualms about dropping that bomb on the pistoleros. That'll be a châtiment 'salutaire'; teach those low lives and future ones that taking a town hostage, shedding uniforms to become saboteurs and illegal combatants, brutalizing prisoners won't be tolerated. A CNN video of smoking crater with carbonized remains of illegal combatants/pistoleros will do much to remind the low lives that respecting the Geneva conventions and the laws of war is very much in their interest.

The Anglosphere: there are friendly skeptics too

A tactical question about the war: where are the rocket launchers?