Found At the Scene: A Glimpse Into Our Adversary's Strategy

Normally, I do not go for the cut-and-paste school of blogging, but this one is too important for me to not make an effort to get it as widely circulated as possible. The Associated Press has sent out over its wires the following document recovered from the bombed out house where maniacal jihadi al-Zarqawi met his well-deserved end. The document was presented to the press by Iraqi National Security Advisor Mouwafak al-Rubaie, who also translated its contents into English. As follows (my emphasis added througout):

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.

In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi'a in general.

Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:

1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.

2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken and close this front.

3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.

4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.

5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.

6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.

7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.

8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.

9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.

The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:

1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.

2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad 'Alawi and al-Jalabi.)

3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.

4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and his people.

5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.

6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in the gulf.

7. A war between the Americans and Iran. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:

1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi'a Rule.

2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.

3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.

4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.

5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.

The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iran, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.

Let us hope for success and for God's help.

It is crystal clear from this document that: (1) the "resistance" is Sunni and sees the Shi'ites as the main enemy, (2) the terrorists feel they are in a "bleak" position, (3) the Iraqi forces are beginning to be a real force to be reckoned with, and (4) the terrorists do not feel that time is on their side.

This document is the strongest evidence to date that the Bush Administration's strategy is working and has a real chance of success.

I would very much like to hear other's analysis of this document before discussing it further. Please do comment and let me know what your thoughts are.

Typical Berkeley, All Too Typical

I went to college at Cal. I arrived a left-winger, seeking refuge from the Republican robots of Orange County, California. I left a newly minted conservative, having had the opportunity to view my comrades up close and personal. I found out there are worse things in the world than a zealous over-fondness for one's BMW or hairstyle. There is irrational hatred for one's own people and culture, for example, or the arrogance of an American left that believes that only its prescriptions are morally good and, thus, that they operate on a plane of spiritual and moral superiority that cannot be questioned. Check that: must not be questioned.

And, boy, let me tell you, you should see the tantrums if anyone dares question it.

Take, if you will, Exhibit A: Meet the Press from Sunday, June 11.

Appearing with host Tim Russert in a panel were Markos Moulitzas of Daily Kos and Byron York of National Review Online. The exchange covered the role of blogs in modern politics, the parties' relative chances in the upcoming mid-term elections, who the leading presidential candidates are, in other words, just the kind of things you would expect. The exchange was normal, it was respectful, and in my judgment each side--including Kos--did a good job of standing up for their point of view. Here is a sample from the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Welcome, all. Markos Moulitsas, let me start with you out in Las Vegas. You've been hosting a convention of liberal bloggers and political activists. What do you think your convention has achieved?

MR. MARKOS MOULITSAS: Well, you know, there's this perception of bloggers as being these anti-social people, typing away at keyboards in their parents' basement. And I think what we've seen is that actually the people who read these blogs are a real cross section of the Democratic Party, a real cross section of America. We have all age groups represented; we have people that are blue collar, white collar. And at the end of the day, no matter how much they may love to be online and use the blogs to find each other, they crave that flesh-and-blood interaction, and that's what they're doing here today.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the blogosphere has become to liberal activists what talk radio is to conservative activists?

MR. MOULITSAS: Yeah, absolutely. I think it's a very apt analogy. The idea being that here, finally, we have a place where good, strong, progressive voices can get together, and we can talk, and we can motivate each other, and we can organize, and we can do and plan the kind of hard work that it takes to win elections. Republicans and conservatives learned this awhile ago-you know, decades ago-it's, you know, it's about time we learned that lesson as well.

MR. RUSSERT: What role do you believe blogosphere and the Internet will play in the 2006 midterm elections, the 2008 presidential election?

MR. MOULITSAS: I think the role's going to get bigger and bigger as the movement grows. I mean, we saw how powerful the movement was back in 2003 during the Howard Dean rise. And at the time, the blog world was about a twentieth of the size it is today. So it's going to be influential.

Now, does that mean we can actually deliver an election? Probably not. But what we can do is we can generate the buzz, we can raise some money, and we can act as a rapid reaction force the way that conservative talk radio and conservative television like Fox News has done for so long.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me bring in Byron York of nationalreview.com, a conservative writer-blogger, a fish out of water out there in Las Vegas, covering the convention.

And, Byron, you wrote this: "There is no doubt that DailyKos, like the left-wing blogosphere in general, has lots of readers.

"Of course, so do blogs on the right. The difference is that bloggers on the right spend most of their time commenting on the news of the day, while bloggers on the left claim to be building a new political movement, one that is revolutionizing Democratic-party politics. ...

"At this moment, the left-wing blogosphere is not only the most energetic force inside the Democratic Party - it is also the most divisive. The question now is whether it will contribute to Democratic victories in midterm elections this November, or instead end up being the Republicans' not-so-secret weapon as they fight off their own problems and try to keep control of Congress."

Why would you suggest that the liberal blogosphere would be a weapon to help the Republicans?

MR. BYRON YORK: Well, I think, I think for the very reason that Markos alluded to. There were a couple of themes that, that I saw at the convention out here. The first theme was, "We've arrived, we're a force to be reckoned with, and they're going to have to pay attention to us." As Markos said in his speech on Thursday night, he said, "We're turning the political world upside down." But the other theme that you saw out here was, "People don't pay attention to us. They think we're crazy. They think we're extremist, liberal bloggers." And Markos actually kind of fuses those two ideas by saying, by kind of creating a classic populist appeal, which is, "Those elites in Washington, they don't pay attention to us, they think we're the riffraff. But you wait, we're going to get together, we're going to storm the gates, and we're going to kick them all out."

Now, the problem is, is that we don't really know how representative they are of the entire Democratic coalition. For example, black voters are a huge part of the Democratic coalition, and Internet activists are overwhelmingly white, as were the participants at the convention out here, and what you would see at a number of meetings staged by moveon.org, the very big liberal Internet activist group. So whether they can actually put together a winning formula is just still unclear to me.

MR. RUSSERT: Markos Moulitsas, it's also interesting that some of your fellow Democrats have made comments. The Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack, said that Democrats shouldn't be banging each other around. Let me-Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council said this, and I'll read it for you and our viewers. "[Left-wing bloggers] are an echo chamber that speaks to a hyper-partisan, very liberal slice of even the Democratic Party. As of yet, they have not produced any political results. Their most celebrated activity was the Dean (2004 presidential) campaign. The last time I checked, there was not a President Dean." How do you respond to that?

MR. MOULITSAS: You know, Byron York talks about there being a kind of a populist clash, and, you know, it's true in a lot of ways. You have people in D.C. that have these nice, cozy little realms of power, and they don't want to give them up. They don't want to realize that there's a lot of energy and intelligence and passion outside of Washington, D.C. D.C. is a bubble. These people have lost touch with real America. They think they know better than anybody else, while we're saying, "Look. The real action, the real excitement in the Democratic Party is happening in the states."

And this isn't a leftist movement. The first person to agree to speak at this conference was the House-the Senate Minority leader Harry Reid, who's an anti-abortion, moderate-to-conservative Democrat. The second person, Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, who's a moderate centrist governor of a red state. So these people aren't coming here because they're speaking to the far left of the Democratic Party, they're coming here because they realize that the blogosphere actually is the big tent of the Democratic Party. We have people on the left, the center, the right and everything in between and up and down the party spectrum. This is what we are. We are a cross section of the Democratic Party.

MR. RUSSERT: Has Mark Warner, the governor-the former governor of Virginia, emerged as a popular figure amongst liberal bloggers?

MR. MOULITSAS: He is one of the top three choices in all the early straw polling that we've done ourselves for the 2008 nomination. And given that-the fact that he is, you know, perceived as a moderate to centrist Democrat, I think that speaks a lot to how pragmatic we are as a movement. A lot of people like Russ Feingold, a lot of people love Wes Clark and a lot of people like Governor Mark Warner because we are in a lot of ways looking for results. And whether he's centrist or left-or rightist or whatever he might be-Governor Mark Warner in Virginia has delivered.

Thus speaketh the Kos on national network television. Not a bad performance, I'd say. The only false note he really struck here was denying that Kos is a leftist site and movement; you can almost see the tactical thinking going on behind that denial. But that is small potatoes. He argued his corner, and Byron (if you'll excuse the pun) argued his corner.

Except that isn't the end of the story. You see, our Kos has been questioned, the legitimacy of his movement as broadly representative of the Democratic Party has been remarked upon. In typical Berkeley fashion, thus, what do we find leading the top of the pops at Daily Kos shortly after the Meet the Press roundtable, now that Kos is off national television? Why, look:

Poor Byron York. He sure sounds like he didn't have fun in Vegas. Of course, Byron is just another chickenshit who didn't serve his nation in uniform. Perhaps it's because they would've cut his hair off in basic training, and like Samson, it would've destroyed his "evil liberal slaying" superpowers.

Typical Berkeley, all too typical. Having been challenged on a point of legitimate concern and debate, the reply is scornful insults. And the number of times Kos has had to wrap himself up in his perfectly normal and completely unexceptional Army service--service shared by hundreds of thousands of his fellow Americans--is thoroughly embarrassing.

Looks like Kos, like most liberals, can't stand an opposing view without degenerating into a froth of poopy-mouthed tantrums.

I get asked about Daily Kos a lot: do I like it? What do you think of it? It its rise to the top of the Blogosphere a good or bad thing?

To which I can only reply: I can't think of a better standard-bearer for the modern American Left than Daily Kos or a better champion of the same than Markos Moulitzas.

The Outdoors Pro

I want to take a minute to direct your attention over to the blog of my good friend, Mark, the OutdoorsPro. Mark's blog mixes political and social commentary with tales from the wilds of Oregon and Alaska, all mixed in with a dash of Mark's professional-grade photography. The resulting mix is, I think, unique and refreshing and definitely worth your time.

Take, for example, this bit o' witty commentary:

Eugene Volokh wonders, Why Require College Educations for Preschool Teachers, Even in State-Funded Programs?

Proposition 82, which will be voted on soon in California, would raise taxes on rich taxpayers to fund broader preschool education. There are lots of things to say about it, but here's one item that particularly struck me: The Proposition would require that "by July 2014, all teachers in the new state preschool program must have a four-year college degree. (Researchers estimate that around 30 percent of preschool teachers in California currently have a college degree.)"

How can that possibly be sensible or fair? Teaching and taking care of small children is important work, but a college education seems highly unlikely to make one better at that work. What's more, the degree need not be in anything related to early education. Knowing college-level math, college-level science, college-level English, and the like may be valuable for a lot of jobs. But how is it valuable for teaching preschool-level skills and knowledge?

Like so very many others, i've been reading The Volokh Conspiracy for a long time now. In fact, it was one of the very first blogs i ever started reading. In all that time i've never felt able to make a useful contribution to their discussions because their levels of knowledge and intellectual ability are so much higher than my own.

On this topic though, i do have a point to make: A primary reason for the new requirement of a four-year degree for preschool teachers is that college, in America, has become an industry. Under the American philosophy of business, if an industry isn't in a constant state of growth that industry is seen as a failure. Therefore, in order to get more students to attend college and "grow the industry", more and more jobs will require a college degree.

I'm certainly not "anti-college", though i do have very ambivalent feelings about my time there. On one hand i gained knowledge that would have been very difficult to aquire outside of school (majored in physics). On the other hand, since i've never worked in the field i can't help but feel all that time and money could have been better spent elsewhere.

Certainly, if one aspires to be a doctor, engineer, scientist or secondary-school teacher it's hard to imagine where else the necessary basic knowledge and skills can be acquired so quickly and effectively. Outside of those fields college is wildly over-rated and mostly unnecessary.

According to this article published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (pdf),

A 1997 survey by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics found that, 4 years after obtaining a bachelor’s degree, 55 percent of graduates were in jobs related to their major field of study. Social sciences majors had the lowest proportion, 33 percent, of jobs related to their field of study. In contrast, 82 percent of those who majored in the rapidly growing health-related fields held jobs related to their major.

I have to wonder if for some of those 45% of students who never worked in their fields of study (after all, just how much hiring have the "social science" corporations been doing lately?) would have been better served by on-the-job training or vocational school?

In my previous career working on the technical side of the television broadcasting world, one fact was clearly demonstrated time and time again, with every single person hired right out of college with a "broadcasting technology" degree: The 19-year old who started right out of high school as a camera operator and learned on the job was much better than the graduate who'd wasted 4+ years to learn the same thing, but actually knew much less. Inevitably, one thing that college graduate always had in abundance was attitude. Even though they could do much less, they expected more responsibility and more money. It became clear to me that that particular degree at least was a complete waste of time and money.

That leads me to the two reasons for the college industry's growth:

First of course, is the money. With ever increasing numbers of people going to college the demand for the product is causing increases in the price. As the costs of a college education increase the number of students and families who lack the means to pay those costs also increase.

As any current student or recent graduate knows, grants and scholarships have hardly kept up. Filling that void is the single biggest growth segment of the college industry, student loans.

According to this Motley Fool article,

The educational loan market is about $300 billion in total. More importantly, it is growing at 10% to 12% per year. The risk profile for such lending is relatively low since the U.S. government backs the loans.

If that's not an impressive rate of growth i don't know what is!

This may be great news for investors in the educational loan market but for students it means that more and more graduates begin their professional lives deep in debt. This hurts in two ways: Making it much harder to begin adult life (investing, buying a house, car, etc. paying children's expenses) and severely limiting career choices to those that pay enough to cover the debt payments.

The other reason for the college industry's growth goes back to the BLS quote above, that 67 percent of social science majors who don't find work in their field of study. Many students who go to college without clear career goals, because "it's what you're supposed to do" and end up in the social sciences because (let's be honest) they're pretty easy.

Upon graduation and the realization that some degrees won't land you a sweet job, what do you do? Grad School! Still unable to get a good job after grad school? It's on to the PhD, then academia. Departments grow larger and with it their power to influence curriculum, resulting in more General Ed. requirements, more majors choices and more graduates with degrees in fields that don't really help them much outside of the university.

All the increases in (mostly) frivolous General Ed. requirements mean the traditional four-year Bachelor's degree is now averaging five years. That additional year means additional student loans and additional debt upon graduation. Well, at least the "social scientists" have job security and the educational loan market continues its impressive growth.

Is there an alternative to this growth cycle? Sure there is, and it's simple: Except in fields where college-based knowledge is essential, stop requiring a college degree for employment and advancement. In most non-technical/scientific/medical fields a degree requirement is just silly.

Let's face it, for a very large percentage of university students attending college is not about preparing for adult life, but delaying or avoiding adult life.

Remove the necessity for a four-year degree when on-the-job training or vocational school would suffice and we will increase the supply of college training where it is necessary. This will lower the costs for those who do need to go to college and reduce the burden of debt on young adults starting out in life. Our economy will be better for.

Erm...unless you're heavily invested in the education loan market.