Freedom's Truth

Lloyd Doggett this week, in full rant mode:

Mr. Speaker, this was was launched without an imminent threat to our families. It endangers them more every day, creating new generations of terrorists. Radical, know-it-all ideologues here bent facts, destroyed intelligence, distorted intelligence, and perpetrated lies designed to mislead the American people into believing that a third-rate thug had a hand in 9/11, and was soon to unleash a mushroom cloud. From the start, House Democrats overwhelmingly voted against this war, but radical ideologues rushed headlong anyway, ignoring professional military advice about the number of troops and equipment needed. One general after another has indicted this administration for its misjudgment and mismanagement. But almost 3,000 Americans lie dead. Another 20,000 seriously injured. Every day, every single day, American taxpayers are forced to spend $229 million dollars in Iraq, and they pay again every time they go to the gas pump. All that's in sight is a civil war quagmire. Today's resolution pins administration failures on the coattails of our courageous service men and women. Administration ineptness is falsely attached to a resolution honoring our troops. Well you know, Americans are increasingly realizing there's a better way to honor our troops than sending more of them off to be killed. Would that there were more a little of our troops' courage right here in Washington, from those who refuse to challenge this administration's myth-based policies, and who choose to cut and run from their responsibilities.

I'm speechless... Will respond ... on July 4th.

Radio Blogger - Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe tells of Iraq's new defense minister's hatred of CNN:

HH: Let's talk a little bit about the new defense minister, Jassin, Senator Inhofe. How's he strike you? Is he middle aged? Is he experienced in military matters?

JI: Yeah, he's very experienced. He's a general. He is a career military guy, and he's tough as he can be. And he came out with all kinds of wild things. I probably shouldn't tell you this...

HH: Oh, go ahead.

JI: But...and this is so funny when it happened. I was talking to him through an interpretor, and I didn't know whether he could speak English. And I finally got to the point where I said look, our big problem is the media, the media back in the United States, because they're lying to the people of America. All of a sudden, in clear English, he said I hate CNN.

ITM's Omar notes that the terrorists had a lull for 3 days while they asessed the Baghdad operation, but then came back this weekend with attacks:

I think the problem with the new security operation is that the tactics employed so far are not new and were not adjusted in a way to meet the needs of the changing security challenges and its worst weakness is that it focused on fixed checkpoints. My guess is that the terrorists/insurgents were frightened by the size of the operation and the amount of troops deployed but they were able to check the pulse of the new security measures and adjust accordingly, thus was the period of relative calm we had in Baghdad during the first two or three days between Wednesday and Friday. ...

... we will be waiting for the next phases of the operation which is the announced plans to disarm the city and attack the terrorists in their safe homes because that is the way to reduce violence. Having checkpoints is a good idea, but these checkpoints should have no fixed places or schedules.

... Needless to say, collecting intelligence is of critical importance to the success of the operation; no checkpoint can stop a suicide bomber from inflicting harm once he's on the street. ... What happened today urges an adjustment of tactics on the part of the commanders in the interior and defense ministries, and this adjustment must be made as soon as possible.

Well said. In counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism, the best defense is a good offense. The army needs to find the safe houses and take them out. They need to attack and destroy the violent insurgent networks. Checkpoints can be a shield, but the operation requires a sword, surgically going after the terrorists. The checkpoints can only serve as a defensive component of a more complete operation that does a 'sweep-and-clear' operation on all areas of baghdad, area by area, combined with random intensive checking, intensive intel-gathering, etc.

Surely, there is one more important component that can make this work: The cooperation of the citizens of Baghdad. Going into each neighborhood, area by area, and ensuring that each one is cleared of terrorists, will go a long way towards ending the threat of the terrorists.

Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, former Republican Guard, leader of al Qaeda's umbrella "Shura Council", was also considered to be the replacement for Abu Musab al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq. He was also a Saddam-era conduit between the terrorist groups and the regime of Saddam Hussein. We have come full circle, where the pre-war alliance between Saddam and terrorists is now the operational basis of the combined Al Qaeda/baathist insurgent alliance, with Al Qaeda operatives working under the same "Shura Council" as Sunni baathist insurgent forces.

We heard the refrain that Saddam and Al Qaeda could never be allies (wrong). The convenient spin, for those against the war, once it became obvious that Al Qaeda was in Iraq, was to insist that it was the American invasion that sparked this link. It runs into many inconvenient truths: One, that Zarqawi was in Iraq back in 2002; Two, that Iraqi intelligence had met with Bin Laden and his organization back in 1998; three, that we have uncovered documents from 2001 where Saddam sponsored actions in support of terrorism against both Israel and the US.

Those connections were forged pre-war but live on in today's combined Al Qaeda/baathist insurgency. As the blog link puts it: "Baghdadi is a living link between Saddam Hussein's regime, Osama bin Laden and today's insurgency in Iraq."

Meanwhile, we are pacifying Ramadi (how many times have we done that now?) We are - as General Franks put it - fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. We are fighting them in alliance because they were already IN alliance. Franks also said a few years back that such a fight was almost inevitable and would take perhaps 5 years. Well, 3 years down so far, and a strong enough Iraqi army to take on more and more of the fight.

We will be revisiting the prior scenes of action many times before the GWOT is won. This is a story with many chapters, like a house with many rooms, and revisits will be required to complete the mission. In Iraq, that means revisiting the configuration of that alliance, with force, until it is crushed or split.

When Paul Bremer suggested we defeat the terrorists militarily, the defeatists bristled at the notion. Juan Cole didn't like it . So he takes Bremer to task. But what does Cole offer instead? Nothing but defeatism. Let us count the ways:

Paul Bremer says he hopes Bush's cabinet summit will develop an effective military plan for defeating the insurgency in Iraq. Bremer came to Iraq saying appalling things like "we will go on imposing our will on this country" or words to that effect, and appears to have learned nothing.

When someone uses quotes, it doesnt mean 'words to that effect', it means those exact words. Yet it was Bremer who handed off Iraqi Sovereignty, saying, exactly: “no question the liberation of Iraq was a great and noble thing.”

Counter-insurgency is tough. The best the hawks can usually do is cite the British in their colony of Malaya in the 1950s, when they curbed a communist movement. But 1960 was a long time ago.

Here, Cole attempts to build up the insurgency as some kind of national force that is unstoppable. Trouble is, it isn't even a real insurgency. It may call itself that, and Juan Cole, in his desperation to validate his anti-Americanism may call it that, but the political program of the terrorists has been dealt a fatal blow by the emergence of democratic instutitions in Iraq. Zarqawi and the Baathists are both left with anti-democratic slogans so meaningless as to represent only one thing: A violent terrorist backlash against the US for the democratization of Iraq. Their only political program is to sow enough chaos to turn Iraq into a 'failed state'. Violence begetting violence, a far cry from nationalist guerilla movements of old.

Contemporary counter-insurgency requires not just a military plan but a successful political track, of negotiating with guerrilla leaders and bringing them in from the cold. That is what the US has never developed, and there are structural reasons for which it is difficult.

Wrong. The US has recognized and pursued political options from the get-go. There have been negotiations with Sunni tribal leaders and other groups such as in Al-Anbar, that were friendly (and/or intimidated by) the terrorists. What Cole fails to do is distinguish the foreign-based Al Qaeda, and the baaathists, and the native Sunni 'helpers' of these two anti-Iraqi-Government forces. Both the US and the Iraqi Government have been 'peeling away' the layers of support for the insurgents and terrorists, and achieved quite a bit of success in Al-Anbar in the last 6 months on that score, as we reported cases where tribes went against the terrorists and fought 'red on red' against them.

Juan also wrongly puts the onus on the US Government - and acts as if the Iraqi Government, with over 200,000 security forces, a fulltime parliament and Prime Minister, do not exist! Why is it for the US Government to negotiate? The sovereign Government of Iraq now has the opportunity and the need to secure a stable and peaceful country. They can and will do it with the help of the US and coalition.

A lot of the guerrilla leaders are Baathists or ex-Baathists, and served in the Iraqi military in ways that make them anathema to the Kurds and the Shiites.

Yet he fails to mention that many former Army officers under Saddam are now serving in the new Iraqi Army. He fails to mention that, indeed, the Defense Minister in Iraq is now a Sunni

And what could the US offer the Sunni Arab religious revivalists?

What an absurd euphemism for the Islamofascist terrorists!!

The prospect of living under a government dominated by Shiite fundamentalists and Kurdish warlords, which they see as a puppet government of the United States? How could they live with that? They dont have to. They die and go to H*LL.

So, Mr. Bremer, the problem is not a military one. The US already has overwhelming fire power. The problem is a political one.

This is a false dichotomy. Bremer correctly pointed out that the terrorist networks could be defeated. He is right. Bremer correctly pointed out that

And it is not a political problem even the best and brightest will easily resolve.

Cole ought not presume that just because he can't or won't figure it out, others can't.

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq are op posed to the US presence almost to a person. They are 5 or 6 million strong, and probably have 60,000 or so fighters if we count weekend warriors (I know this is higher than US military estimates, but if US military estimates were correct there would not still be an insurgency.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. More Sunni Arabs support the Iraqi Government than support the insurgency. They voted, by the millions, for elected officials. Those elected officials command a non inconsiderable bloc of votes under the parties such as the Iraqi Accordance Front. It's not their polling views on the US presense, it is their allegiance to the Iraqi Government and whehter they support violence against it that is the key question and point.

The Sunnis have the best educated managers in their ranks, the best trained strategicians and tacticians, and they probably know where tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions are still hidden.

This completely distorts reality. Only a small fraction of Sunnis are interested and supportive of violence. Many are now working in the Government.

Moreover, the US cannot militarily concentrate all its forces on the Sunni Arab areas, since there is a (Shiite) Mahdi Army low-intensity guerrilla effort in Maysan Province in the South, and Sadr City can't be all that stable either.

More nonsense. The US doesnt have to be everywhere at this time. Several provinces have now been turned over completely to the Iraqi forces; in every province, Iraqi forces are taking a bigger role and sharing a larger part of the load of security. For example (from Strategy Page): "So far, the June 7th strike has led to over 500 more raids. There have been so many raids, that there are not enough U.S. troops to handle it, and over 30 percent of the raids have been carried by Iraqi troops or police, with no U.S. involvement."

The US simply does not and never will have enough fighting troops in Iraq to impose a purely military solution on the guerrilla movements.

This was known from day one and is why we are standing up the Iraqi Army, Police and other security forces. But just because US forces alone can't do it, that doesn't mean a military victory is impossible.

While it is correct to say that a military solution is not sufficient, it is a wrong logical next step to say that military operations and military victories are meaningless. Far from it. The terrorists in Iraq will be defeated by a combination of military and political means.

The military side is this: Operations to kill and capture terrorists; security operations to make Baghdad as a whole a 'green zone' and to widen areas of better security; operations to cut off supply routes of money, arms, and foreign fighters vias Syria; operations to eliminate safe houses weapons caches, etc. Building up the Iraqi armed forces and police to be able to professionally wage this fight and establish the authority of the Iraqi Government.

Then there is the political solution. What Cole misses is that to a large extent the political solution has been worked on via the last 2 years of Iraqi political development: First, a Constitutional democracy, where 10 million voters instead of 1 dictator determines who runs Iraq; second, ensure the rights of Iraqis and a share of power for different sects, via Federalism; third, A system where the Iraqis can have a share of Iraq's oil wealth. The Sunnis need to participate in this, and have, in the December elections.

the kind of willingness to compromise and approach national reconciliation coolly that the Shiites and the Kurds have so far vehemently rejected.

Thisis quite simply false. Has he forgotten former PM Jafaari? The Shia-selected PM was not enough of a 'unity' candidate, and was thrown overboard because he wasnt enough of a consensus candidate for the Kurds and Sunnis. So he was removed and replaced. The new Iraqi Government was painstakingly made in 6 months of negotiations as a result of attempts to build a national unity Government.

To say that Shiites and Kurds are unwilling to brook compromise is an insult to them. Some are hardliners in any camp, but for Juan Cole to suggest that the victims of terrorism owe the terrorists some political settlement is a slap-in-the-face.

As is this: "The US is as hobbled by its allies as by its foes, in making a settlement." Juan Cole has set up multiple strawmen. First the strawman that the US is the one to make the settlment; Wrong, it's a purely Iraqi affair to arrange their politics. Second, the strawman that our allies are all the Shia. hardly, al-Sadr is the most troublesome and most theocratic of the Shia leaders, and he is the second biggest enemy we face in Iraq besides the terrorists and insurgents.

Bremer's plea is to use the means at our disposal to win the needed victory against the terrorists. Juan Cole's response is to pretend those means don't exist and to deny the reality of current Iraqi politics. Cole seems to be locked in a time warp and fails to acknowlede any of the major political developments since 2004, when Bremer was running the CPA. Small matters like the development of an Iraqi Constitution, the election of a parliament and the forming of a national unity Government have completely changed the political environment. He also neglects the most important security development in this fight against the terrorists: the development of over a 200,000 trained members in the Iraqi army. In the end, THESE are the critical political developments that will win a victory for stability in Iraq.

Strategy Page : "Al Qaeda in Iraq has been virtually wiped out by the loss of an address book."

So far, the June 7th strike has led to over 500 more raids. There have been so many raids, that there are not enough U.S. troops to handle it, and over 30 percent of the raids have been carried by Iraqi troops or police, with no U.S. involvement. Nearly a thousand terrorist suspects have been killed or captured. The amount of information captured has overwhelmed intelligence organizations in Iraq, and more translators and analysts are assisting, via satellite link, from the United States and other locations.

And now, the terrorist leader Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, the head of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, says Zarqawi death 'great loss'. They vow to fight on. Surely, and so shall we.

Concede Victory and Get Out says commentator at JihadWatch: "Listen, some people like to concede defeat. I don't. I prefer, in Iraq, to concede victory. We won in Iraq; we've inadvertently created a situation which will inevitably lead to demoralization and division within the Camp of Islam." Alas, his solution may be to watch Jihad, but not to fight it, as the divisions he speaks of are the violent wars that inevitably led to 'failed states' that are covens for terrorism.

We need not cower nor fear the completion of this task. It is not impossible, nor unwinnable. Indeed - look back: Thunder run; clamping down in Fallujah, Mosul, Ramadi, Baghdad; thousands of foot patrols, hundred of weapons cache raids, tens of thousands arrested. And the hardest part: Standing up new Iraqi security forces. This has been done already, a heavy price paid already.

It's now crystal-clear that victory-then-withdrawal will end Al Qaeda in Iraq, while withdrawal will be an unnecessary victory for the terrorists. It is becoming further clear that the terrorists are not only defeatable, they are on the ropes. Now is the time to seize the day as Bremer suggests. Now is the time for more troops, more security efforts, more terrorists captured, more reconciliation and political consensus building.

As ITM reports, there are advances on all fronts:

"The second aspect falls in the category of shaking the lines of militants taking advantage from the hesitation of some groups following the successful strikes of the last several days. In general and as a result of the Sunni participation in the government, these hesitant elements will have a good chance to leave weapons behind and join the political train by accepting the reconciliation invitation that pretty much resembles a pardon preceding a military crack down to deny the use of lack of such gesture as a pretext to continue the violent course by some militant groups."

"Moreover, the government is sending vague messages through the local media stating that some of the documents seized near Zarqawi included names of well known political figures and I think this kind of leaked information is choking the involved elements."

"In fact some people here are suggesting a link between the arrest of the head of the city council in Kerbala and the information found in those documents building these speculations on the nature and timing of the arrest, some are expecting similar arrest to follow against even more important figures. That's what we're going to find out soon but in general these announcement and leaks stand as part of a necessary psychological war that-if performed well-can further lower the morale of the terrorists and their allies."

ITM earlier said of President Bush's trip: "It seems President Bush's visit to Baghdad has given more credibility for the operation; that at least was what I heard from people around me or read in Baghdad's papers today; the visit definitely left a positive impression that America is dead serious this time about finding solutions for Iraq..."

Advances this significant will give momentum for major improvements in Iraq. There are improvements already this year - Jacoby speaks of signs of success in Iraq. But the visible and remarkable improvements that make for victory are possible in the next few months if the new Iraqi Govt and coalition seize the day and victory - Carpe Victor.

At some point, the Democrats and Liberals will have to concede that persistent efforts lead to victory and Defeatism is wrong: "The late, unlamented Abu Musab also said that he felt the US Army was winning the war and successfully raising up a native Army for the new Iraqi Republic that he would not be able to defeat. The Zarqawi documents prove that everything the Liberals have argued about the war in Iraq is the opposite of the truth." That won't be admitted until our troops are out of harm's way.

History will record our success in Iraq by using ... the words of Al Qaeda. This is a portion of the text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout.The document was provided in English by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie:

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.

What a great week. Zarqawi was killed, the new Iraqi Government announced a crackdown to make Baghdad a 'green zone', and Bush touched down with Air Force One and visits Baghdad and the New Iraqi Prime Minister briefly.

But the big score is the followup destruction of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq's national security advisor Mowaffaq al-Rubaie feels they now have the upper hand in defeating Al Qeada: "We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaeda in Iraq," Mr Rubaie said. Zarqawi's death yielded a treasure trove of intelligence, and has exposed the whole Al Qaeda network, a network coalition forces and Iraqi forces are now taking apart:

According to a US military spokesman, US forces have carried out 452 raids since the killing of Zarqawi, leading to the death of 104 insurgents and the capture of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements". Maj Gen William Caldwell said the raids had also yielded 28 significant arms hauls. He said 143 of the raids had been carried out by Iraqi forces acting alone, while 255 raids had involved US forces working with Iraqi security.

Next up for targetting,the new AQ in Iraq #1: "The U.S. military on Thursday identified Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian operative with connections to an Usama bin Laden lieutenant, as the probable new leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Larry Elder on Democrats meltdown in response to Zarqawi's death. Lileks satirizes the latest Zarqawi intel finds.

Stateside GWOT news: Judge Rules That U.S. Has Broad Powers to Detain Noncitizens Indefinitely, and Rachel Meeropol, granddaughter of convicted and executed traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, loses the case. Justice Department was "very pleased that the court upheld the decision to detain plaintiffs, all of whom were illegal aliens, until national security investigations were completed and plaintiffs were removed from the country."

Jonathan Chait thinks he's found the ultimate killer argument against conservatives and is complaining that conservatives aren't responding to him:

"A FEW WEEKS ago, I wrote a column about a paper that decimated the conservative worldview. The study, by William Niskanen of the Cato Institute, found that the conservative "starve the beast" strategy does not work. Indeed, since 1981, he found that tax cuts tend to produce more spending, while tax hikes produce less."

Actually, Niskanen and Chait found no such thing. Tax cuts don't "produce more spending", Congress creates more spending through their actions, and the forces aiding or attenuating such decisions are so varied it's difficult to conclude any such simplistic connection between one policy and another. The Niskanen study showed that tax cuts and spending cuts didn't happen simulteneously, on the contrary it seems that higher spending years correlated with tax cut years. Yet this is hardly news. In the three eras of tax cutting, in 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, only one of those three had tax cuts accompanied by spending "cuts" (which were actually slower increases in the spending). In both the 1980s, there was continued spending increases ("Reagan deficits"), and in the 2001-2006 era, spending has increased at a fast rate. In times of 'budget deficit' concern/hysteria, it was used to squash tax cuts and/or institute tax increases.

It would be wrong to posit tax cuts and spending cuts as incompatible. In the 1994-1998, there was such an impetus to restrain spending, as there was a strong push for fiscal conservatism, led by the Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich. There was no tax increase in the GOP budget plans. On the contrary, the 1995 Gingrich Congress was, like any good Republican would, pushing tax cuts along with a balanced budget. In the 1995 budget cycle, the 'trainwreck' between Clinton and the GOP Congress produced the best of all worlds for deficit reduction; significant spending restraint happened without tax cuts, and $100 billion was cut from the deficit in a single year. Eventually, in 1997, a tax cut and spending cut 'deal' was made between the GOP Congress and Bill Clinton. It managed to eliminate the deficit and provide some tax reductions on capital gains and in other areas. Those tax cuts helped fuel a late 1990s boom and had an actually positive impact on overall tax revenues.

At the individual politician level, there is this other problematic point: Those most in favor of tax reductions are the same fiscal conservatives most in favor of spending cuts; those liberals who want bigger budgets are the most opposed to tax reductions and advocate for higher taxes. When tax cuts happen without spending cuts, the obvious happens: Political weathervanes join the true believers on both sides and make the more politically palatable vote of going along with tax cuts without going along with spending reductions.

Given that, it should be worth considering why supposedly conservative Republican Presidents had higher spending increases than under Democrat Bill Clinton. Yes, there was less Government spending growth in the 1990s than in the Reagan and Bush era, yet MUCH OF IT WAS DUE TO THE "PEACE DIVIDEND" OF LOWER DEFENSE SPENDING. Much of the changes in the eras of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 have little to do with the politics or even the economics of tax cuts, and more to do with our chaning national security challenges, that were less severe under the 'peace dividend' than in the Cold War or Global War on Terror.

The other 1990s factor surely can simply be called "The Newt Effect." For a brief period of time, the Congress, at least the House, was a genuinely and zealous conservative body, that made a real priority on keeping a promise to balance the budget in seven years. They did it in five. The lesson of that experience was this: You didnt need to cut spending radically, but you did require at least to keep Government spending growing smaller than the economy. Why is that a bad model to consider? It ought not be, as the Clinton-Gingrich combo, for those who care only about budget deficits, was the most successful pairing in ending the deficit.

The 'good' models Chait proposes, in 1982, 1990 and 1993, have one thing in common: The politicians who fell for it got hurt. When the GOP panicked and raised taxes in 1982, it didn't save them from losses in mid-term elections; when Bush caved on his 'no new taxes' pledge, it helped the economy sour and turned him into a one-termer; and the 1993 Democratic Congress that passed tax increases, including gas tax increases, helped end the Democrats' 40 year run of being the House majority.

Chait goes on:

I wrote that it would be interesting to see how conservatives reacted to having the factual basis for their entire domestic strategy exposed as a fraud. And it is interesting because "starve the beast" is so central to the GOP approach to governing and because the reaction is a case study in how the conservative movement reacts when its views are disproved.

Let us at least give Chait points for constructing a strawman sturdy enough to take a beating before getting knocked down. And to think that 'welfare reform', 'tort reform', 'economic growth', 'entitlement reform' and getting tough on crime aren't the real domestic policy, just 'starve the beast' is. Yet, curiously, it is not prominent in Republican campaigns, nor is any bill taking us there, as Chait and Niskanen surely have noticed.

The 'starve the beast' claim is originally one made by Pat Moynihan, a Liberal Democrat, alleging that that was the secret goal of tax cutters to simply make the fiscal deficit to large to support spending increases. If one thinks about it, it makes sense for liberals to make this claim, as defending higher taxes for its own sake is hardly a political winner, but scaring consituencies that their Government check could be lost due to a tax cut is a fine way to move politically against tax cuts.

The problem is that it's simply false. Spending reductions has not been the open goal of tax cutters, and it's doubtful that it has been the real hidden-agenda intent either. The zealous tax cutters of recent history, like Jack Kemp, have if anything been 'squishy' on spending reductions. And deficit and budget hawks have often been the last to sign up on tax reductions. That may align somewhat with Niskanen's data, but undercuts Chait's presumption about the goal of tax cuts.

The real goal of tax rate cuts, according to the supply-side tax cutters, is lowering the Government tax burden and creating faster economic growth. If you want to cut spending, there is a simpler way to do it than via tax bills - just pass lower spending levels in appropriations bills. In fact, a large amount of supply-sider zeal has been expended over the years trying to explain how tax rates cuts will not cut Government revenues long-term. A result of tax rate cuts is better economic growth, and higher economic growth of course helps revenues grow faster, so spending can grow faster too.

Yet Chait dismisses that whole notion as: "Second, they note the "economic case" for cutting marginal tax rates. But no economic model shows that long-term tax cuts without spending cuts help the economy."

Really? This is not at all what Lawrence Lindsay showed in his book "The Growth Experiment". He studied the positive Government tax revenue impact of the Reagan 1981 tax cuts, and showed how it positively impacted economic growth.

Nor is this what many other studies has shown - time and time again, positive economic benefits flow from tax rate reductions. George Gilder took on the question of taxation and Government spending here. He noted that the Government with the highest rate of spending growth since 1950 is the Government of Hong Kong, it just happens to be the most laissez-faire low-tax economy on the planet (pre-1997):

If you concede that tax cuts reduce government revenue, it becomes quite difficult to defend tax cuts effectively in a democracy where at least one third of the voters are directly dependent on government spending for their livelihoods, and where most of the rest cherish some kind of government program.

Reagan's genius was to show us a way out of this dilemma: The real undeniable test of tax policy is not short-term shifts in revenue but long-term shifts in spending that are most clearly manifested by increases in the federal budget. Between 1981 and 2004, current government spending in terms of dollars increased fivefold while the total hovered a little above 20 percent of GDP.

" In the mid-1980s, World Bank economist Keith Marsden showed how this is possible: Low tax countries increase their spending three times faster than comparable high tax countries. This is because the low tax economies grow six times faster. For most of the period since World War II, the fastest growing economy in the world, with the fastest growth in government spending, was Hong Kong, with a top rate of 16 percent. A study by Jude Wanniski at Polyconomics extended the analysis through the Reagan era, with the same results. In recent years, Ireland, New Zealand and Russia massively increased spending after drastically reducing tax rates. Russia has increased outlays by some 60 percent after enacting a 13 percent flat tax.

Why do I stress government spending, after a long career of attacking it? The reason is simple: What is crucial is not the absolute level of government but the size of government compared to the size of the private sector. In every country that enacted tax rate reductions, the absolute growth of the private sector enormously outpaced the growth of government. "

This year, on the heels of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and with a strong economy in the US, tax revenues are up strongly. Those increased revenues help make Government less onerous on the rest of us, while at the same time making it politically less necessary to tighten Government's belt. Gilder notes this positve trends in the U.S. economy since 1980:

The growth of the private sector is measured not merely by output but also by assets. In the 25 years since Reagan assumed office, U.S. household assets have more than tripled, to a current record of $52 trillion. Driven by a surging stock market, America's increase in private wealth dwarfs the increases in debt that cause such agony for one-handed economists in Washington, who dutifully gauge the swell of liabilities but seem blinded to the mountainous growth of assets.

By cutting tax rates, Reagan was able to fund a 50 percent increase in defense spending. This expansion of the military was crucial to winning the Cold War. Social spending also grew by some 25 percent - although I should hasten to add that Reagan sharply reduced the nation's debt by negotiating a Social Security Commission regime that extended the age of retirement and cut back the implicit liabilities in the Social Security program by some six trillion dollars. These reforms radically improved the fiscal position of the government compared to the 1970s, when real Social Security liabilities doubled.

... Far from falling behind Japan and Europe, as the experts had predicted throughout the 1980s, the U.S. surged into global economic dominance. To repeat: Beginning in 1980 with a GDP at one fifth of the global total, the U.S. had attained a national output of $11 trillion by 2003, fully one third of a global GDP of $33 trillion. This is an awesome and unprecedented change.

It's a point that at least even the political operative Carville got: It's the economy, stupid. Not the economy defined by budget-balance numbers, but the whole Wealth of the nation: Business formation, jobs & employment, private assets and investments. That economy depends on lower tax burdens and regulatory burdens.

Cutting tax rates is not about starving the Government at all, but about getting the private sector to grow, so that it is not starved out by the burden of Government taxation. We've managed to handle larger spending increases with tax rate reductions, and Chait doesn't realize it, but Gilder has already answered him and Niskanen in full: "What is crucial is not the absolute level of government but the size of government compared to the size of the private sector."

Chait doesnt see that, he looks at 1982, 1993, and 1990 as the stellar moments in deficit reduction, completely ignoring real long-term economic enhancement and deficit reduction implicit in the pro-growth tax cuts of 1981, 1986, 1997, 2001 and 2003. He says:

Make a deal with moderate Democrats to raise taxes and cut spending! That's exactly what Niskanen found and what the last two decades have shown can succeed.

But it's also an approach the conservative movement fervently rejects. It's said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So do conservatives really care about cutting spending, or are they all insane?

If Liberals are the ones who want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, what of those conservatives who want to feed the goose to lay more? Are they being 'unconservative' by creating an environment of higher economic growth that leads to higher spending? Increasing taxes so you can simultaneously also cut spending seems more like giving the goose a thin-gruel diet in exchange for asking for fewer eggs each day. That "can succeed" but is harldy a marker for success. Increase taxes AND cut spending? What's the point? Make everyone unhappy?

In the end, Chait has exposed the opposite of what he intended to expose: Chait has validated a key tenet of the Gilder thesis. This doesn't undermine conservatives, it simply validates the supply-side conservative view against the old "tax-collectors for the welfare state" who ignored tax rates as important. What we find, on the contrary, is that tax rates are vitally important, they determine the vitality of the economy, which determines the future success of the nation.

Balanced against that, whether we spend a bit more or a bit less on a particular govt program becomes a matter of petty quibbling.

There is a simple rule that Conservatives could follow to be consistent with low tax rates as well as fiscal responsibility. I call it the 15% solution. It simply means that we should have as a goal to make the total Federal Government burden on the economy no bigger than 15% of GDP, and to reduce tax rates where possible to be no more than 15%. This level of burden is one that our economy can easily carry and would make our economy a real powerhouse that cna ensure proseprity for all. The Federal Government today spends more than 15% of GDP, and the way to get there eventually is to make sure Govt spending increase are slower and lower than economic growth.

Marines aided two Iraqi boys injured by an IED:

Marines were manning a traffic control point on a road about two kilometers east of Ar Rutbah when the boys' uncle approached them to request medical assistance for his wounded nephews. The uncle said the boys were watching sheep about seven kilometers north of Ar Rutbah when the makeshift bomb exploded. Iraqi soldiers and U.S. Marines rendered first aid and coordinated the medical evacuation of the two boys to a nearby U.S. military medical facility.

hat-tip FR, The explosion that killed eight Palestinians on Friday, was caused by a stockpile of Hamas explosives:

"Shortly after we stopped defensive firing at Hamas rocket launch pads which were deployed behind Palestinian human shields, members of Hamas scrambled to fire more rockets at our positions," said Col. M. "We have eyes on every meter of Gaza, from the sky, from the ground and from the sea. One of their rocket tripods collapsed inadvertently setting off an explosion of a stockpile of Qassam rockets. The Palestinians killed their own children. And this was not the first time."Hamas terrorists fired rockets and mortar bombs from a crowded Gaza beach at southern Israel. Some of the rockets fell near the Israel city of Ashkelon. Some 17 rockets were fired between Saturday and Sunday morning. A man at a school in the Israel town of Sderot was wounded, Israel officials said.

took out not only Zarqawi, They took out 200 of his closest associates.

In the LGF comment log: "it seems to me that Arab culture is prone to exaggeration." Maybe TIME magazine has 'gone native' and took up Al Jazeera's Jenin-hoax-style local flavor in their article, as they reported a middle-aged man as a 'journalism student', conflated a two person group with UN's Human Rights Watch, decided not to mention that one instigator behind this story was jailed by Americans for five months, and failed to have direct contact with any actual witnesses (they were 'interviewed' via intermediaries friendly to pushing the story) before reporting their 'atrocity' story.

UPDATE:So what did happen? See below. All the theories of Marines flipping their lid or being blood thirsty and other nonsense needs to wait the conclusion of the investigation.

Sweetness and Light links to the the Washington Post article presenting the first eyewitness account of this, the Marine Staff Sgt involved in the operation. This is the most authoritative account on this incident, coming from an eyewitness who had a responsibility for reporting factually to superiors:

Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich’s account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients. ...

A corporal with the unit leaned over to Wuterich and said he saw the shots coming from a specific house, and after a discussion with the platoon leader, they decided to clear the house, according to Wuterich’s account.

"There’s a threat, and they went to eliminate the threat," Puckett said.

A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said.

The Marine who fired the rounds — Puckett said it was not Wuterich — had experience clearing numerous houses on a deployment in Fallujah, where Marines had aggressive rules of engagement.

Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children — most likely civilians — they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.

Wuterich, not having found the insurgents, told the team to stop and headed back to the platoon leader to reassess the situation, Puckett said, adding that his client knew a number of civilians had just been killed.

Neal A. Puckett, defense attorney for Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich - who led a team of Marines into a now controversial battle in Haditha on November 19 - says that US forces that day were strictly following the rules of engagement:

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

"Evidence accumulates of a hoax in Haditha"

The Left goes in meltdown over the death of Zarqawi

Memo to the media and the left: Our guys - our military, our Goverment, our people - are the good guys; the terrorists are the bad guys. It's good when our good guys get bad guys. Got it?

NRO reaction remains un-morally confused about the good that came from Zarqawi's death.

A huge blow to Al-Qaeda in Iraq was dealt with the death of Zarqawi and with 17 other simultaneous raids to take out Al Qaeda operatives:

In the final two weeks of the manhunt, Caldwell indicated U.S. and Iraqi forces had pinpointed the location of many other key al-Qaida figures but had held off for fear of spooking their boss. After al-Zarqawi was killed, U.S. and Iraqi forces carried out 17 raids in the Baghdad region, he said.

And the enabler of this? "Khalilzad's efforts to patch up relations with Sunnis." The Sunni insurgency betrayed Zarqawi.

On the same day, al-Maliki won parliamentary approval for three important ministers. The new defense minister is Army Gen. Abdul-Qader Mohammed Jassim al-Mifarji, a Sunni Arab, while Shiite Jawad al-Bolani took over the Interior post. The new minister of state for national security, Sherwan al-Waili, who will advise the prime minister, also is a Shiite.

This really is a new day in Iraq. Just as Saddam's capture sealed off Saddam as having a future in Iraq, the death of Abu Zarqawi is both a symbolic and substantive victory that signals the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda in Iraq. We got the world's most wanted terrorist besides Osama Bin Laden. The future for the next leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq will be a short career in terrorism that ends in his eventual capture or death.

Iraqi and Arab blogger reaction has been mostly happy - "999 left to go, at least its a begining, i have never been more happier than when they caught the Rat in the hole!" - yet understanding that it won't end violence: "Al-Zarqawi is dead. Good riddance. Who's their next leader in Iraq?" ITM makes a point that is often neglected in the treatment of 'women and children' as innocent collateral damage: "Al-Maliki said that among the 7 killed with Zarqawi were two women who were responsible for collecting intelligence for the al-Qaeda HQ cell."

For a truly clueless reaction, look to Cindy Sheehan who said: "I suspect it's going to make the insurgency in Iraq worse." Uh huh, and D-Day actually made World War II worse, etc.

There is such an effort to not over-emphasize this, partly because the media and left fear the political impact, that there is a risk of under-stating the victory gained here. This is akin to a victory in a major engagement in World War II. This is not just the death of Zarqawi, this is the toppling of the Al Qaeda organization from the top down:

An aide to killed insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was arrested south of Baquba today, an officer in the Iraqi army said cited by AFP. Abbas al-Mufraji, described by the military as a Zarqawi associate, was arrested in the village of Khan Bani Saad, the same place where two heads without bodies turned up earlier in the day. Twenty-three other suspected followers of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader were also picked up in sweeps throughout the villages south of Baquba that started Friday and lasted well into the next day.

In the war against terrrorists, we don't win by taking territory, we win by dismantling their shadowy network, and there is no better dismantling move than decapitation. These operations require intelligence, and one lead gets you to other finds, until the vein of intelligence that is mined taps out and the (now-damaged) networks burrow elsewhere... This operation was the symbolic victory that marching into Rome or Paris was, with the substantive impact that battles such as Midway and The Bulge had. Stingray blog compares with the killing of Japanese admiral Yamamoto. He also points out reporting on followup raids:

..., the spokesman said troops carried out 39 raids overnight in which troops "picked up things like memory sticks, some hard drives" that would allow American forces to begin dismantling al-Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq. Those raids were based on 17 simultaneous raids U.S. troops staged Wednesday near Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province. ... "He said the latest information was helping U.S. forces unravel the source of al-Qaida's weapons and financing."

If the source of Al-Qaeda's weapon and financing can be unravelled, then the long-term prospects for Iraqis will signficiantly brighten as the level of violence gets reduced.

These networks have a third leg besides weapons and financing, and that is the media and the message. The message is of invicnibility and inevitability, and that was shattered this week. Throught the Iraq operation, the biggest impediment to victory has been, aside from our enemies themselves, the defeatist media that is the terrorists main thread of hope. As David Warren wrote in his own post-Zarqawi analysis:

To an enemy who depends utterly on morale, in the absence of significant military abilities — who has only such weaponry as he can rig or steal, and only such soldiers as he can recruit in secret; who has no secure territory to which he can retreat and regroup — this constant and reliable support from the media is indispensable. Without it, the “resistance” in Iraq would have collapsed quickly, saving ten-thousands of lives; and the Afghan “resistance” would be in greater disarray (though it has the benefit of secure pasturage in remote tribal mountain fastnesses).

The morale and invincibility blow to Al Qaeda is obvious, even despite a media eager to minimize it.

There is good news not just in Iraq, as scores of Taleban killed this week.

Over a year ago I predicted and spoke of 'victory' in Iraq, statements that some might consider premature even now, given the continued violence in Iraq. Yet the strategic configuration for Al Qaeda in Iraq has only worsened, while the prospects for a democratic Iraq have gone from hopeful to (an albeit imperfect) reality. The new democratic Iraq's first full Government is now fully in place. Those working towards a stable and democratic Iraq - the coalition s well as the Iraqi political forces - are winning and will win, so long as our legacy is a strong and non-corrupt Iraqi security force.

Al Qaeda is damaged but not defeated, so not the end yet, but perhaps the beginning of the end for them in Iraq. This end-game will take time, many years, and it will end with a whimper not a bang, as we slowly, steadily grind away and turn Al Qaeda in Iraq into dust. This will happen while a disgruntled, discredited and defeatist media will continue to assume "It can only get worse" as things get better and better.

He Lived by the bomb, died by the bomb, and now And there is much rejoicing:

BAGHDAD, June 8 (KUNA) -- Iraqi citizens took to the streets celebrating Abu Musaab Zarqawi's death on Thursday. Joy filled Baghdad's hot streets, as gun shots sounded through the air, and cars packed with overjoyed Iraqi's roamed the streets. Iraqis were sharing sweets with people outside their homes.

Civil organizations paraded as they condemned violence chanting "death to Zarqawi and Saddamites." Thursday's celebrations could be compared to the jubilation in Baghdad's streets the day Saddam Hussein was captured.

Iraqis hope Zarqawi's death would bring an end to the series of terrorist operations on Iraqi streets.

Iraqi MP, Mahmoud Othman, said Zarqawi instigated sectarianism in Iraq and bloodied its streets.

A freeper asks a good question as he rants on La Raza and race patronage:

Sigh. La Raza was formerly and more expressively known as La Raza Unida or you know, The Race United (Zeig Heil! inserted for exaggeration, do not attempt at home). I guess for succinctness and brevity they just shortened it to "The Race". Pretty ballsy if you ask me. It's been around since I was a kid and I always thought it was oddly racist. And really tiresome. Why isn't this type of organization that revels in exclusivity harrassed like the feminists harrassed the people at Augusta National or the gays harrassed the Boy Scouts? 60 Minutes should be all over them. If they had any credibility they would be.

As Orwell (a la Animal Farm) would say, we may believe in racial equality, but some races are more equal than others.

Most of the Iraqi Government was unveiled two weeks ago, but there continue to be delays in getting the important Defense and Interior posts filled. The planned announcement of Saturday was suspended as al-Maliki's choice ran into opposition from his own party. Rice is confident will get filled soon. So a few empty seats still in the new national unity Government ...

Members of the new Iraqi government, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, third left, attend a national assembly meeting in Baghdad Saturday May 20, 2006.

Take atrocity claims with grains of salt advises one ex-Marine, writing in the New York Post.

One the one hand you have clear "Rules of Engagement" and the Marines involved: "I have served in peace and war with Lt. Col. Jeff Chessani, the commander of the battalion involved in the incident. Chessani, who was relieved in April in the wake of the ongoing investigation, is among the Marine Corps' best and brightest officers, a man I believe incapable of participating in or covering up such an atrocity."

Then you have the media- showing victims of insurgents as if they are victims of US military. A year ago, The left-media advertized Haditha as terrorist haven, one where terrorist/insurgent control mean executions on a bridge. But that angle was missed in the recent reporting on Haditha of Haditha as a sleepy town and not an insurgent hotbed.

Then you have the questionable sourcing of the allegations. the doctor involved hates the US and the Muslim reporter who first brought the video to the press was jailed and interrogated by the US as a suspect insurgent. The US military is tight-lipped, and so the media writes the narrative and speculation runs on the side of those who have a vested interest in American or Bush administration failure.

In all, 19 people were killed in three separate homes in Haditha, and 5 were killed after they approached the scene in a taxi, survivors and people in the neighborhood said.

I hope some good will come of what we learn of this, but it is hard to see what that will be.

The Object Beyond War talks about the four tools of winning a war against insurgents - coerciveforce, economic incentive and disincentive, legitimating ideology, and traditional authority - and applies it to the Iraqi situation:

These tools are equally available to insurgent and counterinsurgent forces. From the perspective of the population, neither side has an explicit or immediate advantage in the battle for hearts and minds. ...

The central goal in counterinsurgency operations, then, is to surpass the adversary in the effective use of the four tools. according to british brigadier General richard Simpkin, “established armed forces need to do more than just master high- intensity maneuver warfare between large forces with baroque equipment. They have to go one step further and structure, equip, and train themselves to employ the techniques of revolutionary warfare to beat the opposition at their own game on their own ground.” 5

Beating the opposition requires that counterinsurgency forces make it in the interest of the civilian population to support the government. How? To win support counterinsurgents must be able to selectively provide security—or take it away. Counterinsurgency forces must become the arbiter of economic well-being by providing goods, services, and income—or by taking them away. Counterinsurgency forces must develop and disseminate narratives, symbols, and messages that resonate with the population’s preexisting cultural system or counter those of the opposition. and, finally, counterinsurgents must co-opt existing traditional leaders whose authority can augment the legitimacy of the government or prevent the opposition from co-opting them.

Aspects of the needed response are shown in this incident that the MSM and accusers tried to show as an 'atrocity', An attack on insurgent leaders in Ishaqi that the military says was justified:

Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, said that in response to claims that as many as 13 civilians were killed in the raid near Ishaqi, south of Samarra, officials launched an investigation the next day. "The investigation revealed the ground force commander, while capturing and killing terrorists, operated in accordance with the rules of engagement governing our combat forces in Iraq," Caldwell said.

Credible intelligence led to the raid, in which Ahmad Abdallah Muhammad Nais al-Utai, also known as Hamza, a Kuwaiti-born al Qaeda cell leader, was captured and Uday Faris al-Tawafi, also known as Abu Ahmed, an Iraqi involved in making roadside bombs as well as recruiting local people to join the insurgency, was killed, Caldwell said.

When ground forces arrived at a house that intelligence reports said was being used as an insurgent safe house, they came under fire from the building, the general said.

"As the enemy fire persisted, the ground force commander appropriately reacted by incrementally escalating the use of force from small arms fire to rotary wing aviation, and then to close air support, ultimately eliminating the threat," he said.

"Allegations that the troops executed a family living in this safe house, and then hid the alleged crimes by directing an air strike, are absolutely false," the coalition spokesman added. In the subsequent search, the general said, coalition forces documented the discovery Abu Ahmed's body and those of three noncombatants.

One elements is the need for precision and proportionality, as opposed to indiscriminate Since the insurgents merely need to show the incapability of security to harm the central authority, excess force creates a backlash. But even in this case there is a claim of killing of civilians.

The insurgents are trying to build a narrative that deligitimizes the US response by blurring the distinction between insurgents and Iraqi civilians. Hence the 'human shields' used by the insurgents. The global media is complicit in this narrative by constantly refusing to make distinctions between insurgents and other Iraqis in reports. Their narrative is: Every living Iraqi in the media narrative hates America, every dead Iraqi is an innocent civilian victim of the US.

The media is complicit in this narrative in these ways:

• Failing to highlight successes against insurgents and terrorists by US and Iraqi forces; this fits the narrative of defeat.
• Failing to call terrorists as "terrorists"; often a car bomb killing a number of civilians will be described in terms of an act of nature, as if the insurgency doesnt exist but only generic violence. In the terrorists' desired narrative, the terror network wants to be a hidden unseen group, that sows chaos, a chaos for which the Government is helpless and incapable of changing.
• Failing to distinguish between insurgents/terrorists and wider Sunni population

The truth is starkly different - a core insurgency that is small and overall disliked by most Iraqis, yet lives based on fear and their willingness to commit horrible crimes and forsake quarter. It also survives on media organs favorable to its message, an that wittingly or unwittingly, convery their preferred narrative of insurgency.