My view is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that we use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech.

The Gingrich quote in full. This perspective shouldn't be dismissed outright. Al Queda is a scene. It has no central organization. Its just a bunch of people who share a perspective. They share that perspective online. If you want to stop them from organizing, you have to stop them from hanging out online. And that runs into the first amendment like a train wreck. This is the fundamental question of our age.

Gingrich wants to restrict freedom of speech? - Countdown with Keith Olbermann - MSNBC.com

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Remember when Democrats were fearmongering that Bush would enstate a draft if reelected... Um...

Top Democrat: Bring back the draft - CNN.com

If it can be established increased troop levels have been producing a positive effect on the security situation, that not only means that there is some hope for future stabilization through a troop increase, but that American forces have had and are having a net positive effect on Iraqi security levels now. If, on the other hand, no correlation between troop levels and violence levels can be established, the logical conclusion is American troops have been contributing very little to stabilizing the Iraqi situation, in any numbers. Regrettably for supporters of the Stuntz argument, given the statistical data to date, the latter seems the stronger conclusion.

This is worth a look, but I think he needs to look at the whole security picture and not just US fatalities.

Data on the relationship between troop levels and coallition fatalities in Iraq

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday....

Sen. Chris Dodd said prior to the election that he regrets the decision not to filibuster the MCA: "I regret now that I didn't do it . . . This is a major, major blow to who we are."

Remember kids, anyone any federal official accuses of Terrorism is guilty, especially if they are an immigrant. Democrats want the Terrorists to win.

The Military Commissions Act in action

The Daily Telegraph reports today that Iran is seeking to wield influence within Al-Qaeda to help name its number three individual in the Al-Qaeda organization. If accurate, the report states that Ahmadinejad is trying to persuade Al-Qaeda to promote a pro-Iranian activist (Saif Al-Adel) to a senior position within its leadership.

For the past three years, U.S. intelligence officials have said a shadowy group called the "al Quds force"-- the Jerusalem force -- part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard organization, may be sheltering some al Qaeda leaders, including its military commander, Saif Al-Adel, and Saad Bin Laden, son of the al Qaeda leader.

It is now reported that Iran is seeking Saif Al-Adel to fill the number three position of the Al-Qaeda organization. It is also reported that is believed that Osama Bin Laden health problems may be causing Iran's push to have Saif Al-Adel in that role to complement Zawahiri. According to reports from Western intelligence agencies, Iran is training senior Al-Qaeda operatives in Teheran to take over the organisation when bin Laden is no longer leader. For some time, military officials have claimed that Iran is providing Iraqi terrorists with arms.

Clearly Iran is supporting Iraqi Shia. Clearly Al'Q is supporting Iraqi Sunni... What does THIS mean?

Counterterrorism Blog: Iran forging alliance with Al-Qaeda?

He's exasperated now, visibly angry at what he sees as a willful Western foolishness. "Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."

This in particular is quite amusing:

He leans back, takes a deep breath and moves to another area, one that he says is far too seldom discussed: "North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings. If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men. Look at the figures for suicide bombings and see how few are from the Shiite world. Terrorism and violence yes, but not suicide. The overwhelming majority are from Sunnis. Now within the Shiite world there are what is known as temporary marriages, lasting anywhere from an hour to 95 years. It enables men to release their sexual frustrations.

"Islam condemns extra-marital sex as well as masturbation, which is also taught in the Christian tradition. But Islam also tells of unlimited sexual ecstasy in paradise with beautiful virgins for the martyr who gives his life for the faith. Don't for a moment underestimate this blinding passion or its influence on those who accept fundamentalism."

A pause. "I know. I was one who accepted it."

The hedonsitic paradise offered by these religions is absolutely stupid. Its obviously a mistranslation.

Hot for martyrdom

The many disappointments and crimes and blunders do not relieve us of a responsibility that is either insufficiently stressed or else passed over entirely: What is to become, in the event of a withdrawal, of the many Arab and Kurdish Iraqis who do want to live in a secular and democratic and federal country? We have acquired this responsibility not since 2003, or in the sideshow debate over prewar propaganda, but over decades of intervention in Iraq's affairs,

Unlike Hitchens I question the wisdom of starting this conflaguration in the first place. Furthermore, I'm probably more unhappy than he is about the Administration's pattern of firing people who told them the truth and retaining people who told them what they wanted to hear. But regardless, its worth pointing out that the war did, in fact, happen, and withdrawing from Iraq will not undo that. In fact, one of my most serious criticisms of this whole adventure is the reality that in removing Hussein we may have unleashed forces that will make the region a thousand times more dangerous and oppressive. What that means is now we have a responsibility and a clear need to be there. I do worry that in burning the Republicans for incompetence we'll replace then with Democrats who want us to withdraw. Leaving Iraq to it's own devices after casting it into chaos is the worst thing we can possibly do. If that point has been insufficiently stressed then let it be heard.

The indecent haste to exit Iraq. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

John Yoo is a law professor who served in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003. In that capacity, he participated -- often quite centrally -- in the key post-9/11 legal decisions that framed the Bush administration's war on terror, including the Patriot Act, the National Security Agency surveillance program and administration positions on torture, military tribunals and the treatment of alleged terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

In War by Other Means, Yoo delivers on his subtitle. This is indeed "an insider's account of the war on terror." He sets an ambitious goal for himself: "to explain the choices that the Bush administration made after 9/11," choices made "under one of the most dire challenges our nation has ever faced."

A scathing review of John Yoo, but somewhat complementary of his new book. I'd like to read his book. I would hope he would understand that Clarence Thomas's view of executive privledge is radical, and opposition to it isn't rooted in ignorance, but if the man who is responsible for about half of what pisses me off about the war on terror indeed just published a rant accussing everyone who disagrees with him of being idiots, its another brick in the wall. Of course, at some point on this blog I've probably called him the same, but a blog is not like a book.

The Amazon page is entertaining. Nearly no one has reviewed the book. Opinions are breaking on partisan lines about the policy. Clearly, Republicans see this as a work of brilliance, and Democrats see it as chilling. I have to wonder what the partisan break would look like if Yoo had been working for Clinton.

Taking Liberties - washingtonpost.com

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

Why would we need an auditor? Clearly anyone who criticises occupation officials hates America! The New York Times hates America, otherwise they wouldn't publish this sort of story. I'd go as far as to say that the publication of this story is a borderline act of treason! Do these people want the terrorists to win!? What do the Democrats say about operating an effective occupation? Just say no!

Grumble... If Congress passed legislation more likely to undermine our chances of winning in Iraq, it would involve funding cuts. This is like shooting yourself in the face with a shotgun and hoping its unloaded. Why do we entrust our national security to people who are this fucking stupid?

Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office - New York Times

Top U.S. officials in Iraq today predicted that Iraqi security forces could be largely self-sufficient within 12 to 18 months and said the Iraqi government is building a timetable for disarming militias, quieting insurgents and solving ongoing struggles for economic and political power.

The administration has finally agreed to a timeline for leaving Iraq. The question is whether this number is actually meaninful in regard to substantive progress or if they are merely providing a number to create the appearance of progress which is, of course, not immutable in the future...

Transcript here

U.S. Officials: Iraqi Security Could be Ready in 12-18 Months - washingtonpost.com