With the execution of Saddam Hussein, there will be much commentary over the next several days on what it all means to the on-going war in Iraq. Some, like Ralph Peters, will simply say that the overthrow and eventual execution of Hussein was the right thing to do, and I agree with that, even after all the mistakes that followed the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The execution will not have any impact on the violence, as Hussein had long since been demoted to a bit player in the drama. The war will still be won or lost not in Iraq, but here in America. While George W. Bush is a stubborn man, and will almost certainly continue the war effort, his term will end in January of 2009. Unless a John McCain is elected to succeed him, I expect the next President to follow the will of the majority in Congress and the majority of the American people who want our troops to accept defeat and leave Iraq. The flaw in our war-fighting character that makes limited wars anathema to us will, as in Vietnam, lead to our defeat and humiliation, which, unlike Vietnam, will lead to a much more destructive and bitter future than we would have seen otherwise.

WPRO TODAY

I will be hosting the Dan Yorke Show today on WPRO-AM in Providence, as Dan takes the day after Christmas off. The show airs from 3-7 PM. Among the items I am considering for the show:

The U.S. military considers expanding its recruiting efforts to include foreigners.

Two Iranians are held by American troops in Iraq. Proof of Iranian meddling?

Is the Democratic victory in the November elections as significant as their victory in 1932? One columnist thinks so.

The Democrats are working with some Republicans in an effort to re-draft an immigration reform bill, that could include a path to citizenship and scrapping the border fence the GOP-led Congress passed earlier this year.

Is Senator Barack Obama really saying anything of substance to justify the enormous attention he is receiving? A Providence Journal columnist says no.

Is traditional marriage on the wane in the United States?

In the New York Times this morning two stories I thought were quite fascinating;

Internal bickering among the Saudi rulers over what to do about Iraq. Increasingly, some inside Saudi Arabia are looking at Iran as a greater threat than Israel.

Intrigue follows death of the leader of Turkmenistan. It seems President Nyazov, a holdover from when Turkmenistan was a Soviet Republic, had created a cult of personality. Among other things, it seems he believed he would live forever, as he never made any plans for a succession. Like all tyrants, death found him anyway.

Masha Lipman, writing in the Washington Post, has more on the situation in Turkmenistan.

An amusing column from Charles Krauthammer, also in the Post, that might explain why Americans are disliked around the world.

An interesting theory from Dick Morris and Eileen McCann about the Obama effect in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

As the U.S. and Britain add ships to the Persian Gulf, the President of Iran is facing a backlash from university students. If he is as brutal and uncompromising as I think he is, expect him to crack down on them soon.

Rich Lowry says Conservatives need to know when to admit when the media is right.

Victor Davis Hanson has an explanation for why radical Islam is on the march.

So the immigration authorities do a sweep at a Colorado meat-packing plant and arrest a bunch of illegals. Since native born Americans don't want to do those kinds of jobs, the plant should be suffering, no? No. They have a line of applicants for the jobs that goes out the door.

Mohammed is moving up the list of the most popular name for baby boys in England. It has vaulted past George on the list. I expect it will continue to climb the list in the years ahead.

A CIA exercise exploring the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq had some pretty sobering results, according to this article.

The President of Iran says his country is now a "nuclear power". With a second aircraft carrier battle group steaming toward the Persian Gulf, that pronouncement is sure to raise tensions in the region. Tony Blair has some thoughts on what the other Gulf States should do about Iran.

Tony Blankley thinks that the torrent of information bombarding us every day is causing us to lose our grip on reality.

Here is the answer to the neo-cons plan to surge more troops into Baghdad.

Ralph Peters says the new Army and Marine counter-insurgency manual gets it right.

Simon Tisdall says dark days are ahead for the pro-Western government in Kabul.

This story illustrates how reason is being trumped by irrationality in so much of the Middle East.

Blogger Bill Roggio, who is embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq, has this excellent piece on the attributes and shortcomings of the new Iraqi Army.

CAN WE ACHIEVE A MILITARY VICTORY IN IRAQ?

Over the last several days, it has become apparent that President Bush is leaning toward accepting a plan to make one last try at achieving a military victory in Iraq. The plan will almost certainly involve adding at least 20,000 American troops to the Baghdad area, and perhaps more. To be effective, though, those troops will have to have a clear mission. What will that mission be? Who will they fight? To what end?

One of the major problems we have faced since the beginning of the insurgency is the changing nature of the adversary. At first, he was primarily composed of Sunni rejectionists backed by foreign jihadists. Today, most of the experts I have heard and read say the violence in Iraq is primarily being driven by Shiite vs. Sunni antagonisms, with a healthy dose of Sunni insurgents and foreign jihadists, along with violent, criminal gangs who kidnap and murder for profit. Add to that the continuing influence of foreign, especially Iranian, agents, and you have a witches brew of violence.

Will our soldiers continue to be used as policemen? If they can bring the level of violence down to an acceptable level, can that be maintained by Iraqi forces, or will the violence simply spike back up as soon as American troop levels are drawn down?

For the moment, while I am emotionally drawn to calls for victory in Iraq, I remain very doubtful that any kind of military victory can be achieved with anything less than an all-out war against Iran and Syria, carried out with massive, merciless force. Since no such action is being contemplated, nor would it even be possible with the current force levels, then I am left with the same, sad, pitiless conclusion. We will choose to leave Iraq, if not now, then eventually, probably by 2008 or 2009. When we leave, we will declare victory, but everyone will know that we were defeated. At that point, we will be weaker than at anytime since 1941. The consequences of our weakness will not be the peace the advocates of withdrawal are looking for, rather it will be war, far larger and more deadly than anything we have seen so far.

Timothy Garton Ash says George W. Bush has created a catastrophe across the Middle East.

Perhaps it is because he wasn't willing to do what David Warren says needs to be done.

Ralph Peters has this advice on the way forward in Iraq...choose a side in the Iraqi civil war (he says we should help the Shiites).

As Iran gets closer to obtaining nuclear weapons, Michael Freund offers this plea to American Christians for their help.

Perhaps he has a right to be worried, as this analysis of President Ahmadinejad in the New York Times paints him as a true-believer when it comes to Holocaust denial (and, something which follows logically from that, a belief in the illegitimacy of the Jewish State).

Of course, all the problems of our age may fade into insignificance if our population begins to shrink as outlined in articles here, here and here.

The Army and Marines exceeded their recruiting goals last month, a strange phenomenon to happen while public support for the Iraq War continues to plummet.

The Army and Marine Corps will ask Congress and the President for more troops. This is long overdue. As I have written repeatedly since 9/11, the policy of keeping our military at its post-Cold War size since the new war began is absolute madness. Unfortunately, the Army and Marine Generals are not asking for a large enough expansion.

A Democrat has won the last U.S. House election of 2006, making it a 30 seat gain for the Democrats.

The President will wait until next year before coming to the people with a new strategy for Iraq. Unlike the Democrats (and a few Republicans), I am in favor of allowing the President to take his time. We have made so many mistakes in Iraq, so let's not compound those mistakes by rushing in to a new policy without getting the advice of everyone, including the Iraqis.

Retired General Barry McCaffrey has this advice for the President.

Tony Blankley says the President should listen to the ghost of Abraham Lincoln.

The Saudis say they might back Iraq's Sunnis if the U.S. withdraws. Clearly, the Saudis have some pull with the Bush family, so expect the President to listen carefully to their advice.

The Iraqi government wants the Americans to cede to them more control in Baghdad. Essentially, they would have American troops move to the suburbs, while the Iraqi Army, backed by Kurdish reinforcements, would assume security responsibility for the city. Needless to say, this has alarmed Sunni politicians who can imagine a Shiite Iraqi Army, aided by Kurds, standing by while Shiite militias ethnically cleanse the city of Sunni Arabs.

Anthony Cordesman reminds us that while we are preoccupied with Iraq, we are losing another war, this one in Afghanistan. He has some ideas on what is needed to prevent that from happening.

Meanwhile, in Tehran, the President of Iran says that Israel is fading away, and will soon join the Soviet Union on the ash heap of history. His audience, a group of Holocaust deniers, no doubt was pleased to hear such a prediction. I'm still not sure why so many smart people think that we can negotiate with this guy.

Did the Israeli Prime Minister end Israel's "ambiguity" about its possession of nuclear weapons?
Some Iraqis are trying to politically isolate Moqtada al Sadr.

Here is the first opinion piece I have seen which explicitly advocates a total surrender to al Qaeda. Of course, the authors do not think of it that way.

Richard Cohen is advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as he believes our presence there is only delaying the inevitable civil war.

Pat Buchanan says Iraq will cause another civil war, this one in the GOP.

The President met with some military experts who told him not to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Is an Iraqi civil war inevitable? As long as the Iranians and Syrians continue to interfere in Iraq with impunity, then, yes. Is our withdrawal inevitable? As a political matter, yes.

ISLAMOFASCISM ON THE MARCH

The Islamofascists continue their march toward an improbable victory against a morally weak and irresolute foe (that would be us)...

In Lebanon, the pro-Western government is under siege by the Syrian sponsored Hezbollah and their allies.

In Pakistan, the Taliban have created a mini-state from which to launch their Spring offensive against NATO and the Americans in Afghanistan. Arnaude de Borchgrave believes the Taliban are being backed by Pakistani intelligence, with the knowledge of President Musharaff.

Caroline Glick thinks that the ISG report is evidence of the Americans intention to quit the fight, which she believes means the Israelis are going to have to take matters into their own hands.

2007 is shaping up to be a year to remember, especially for future military/war history buffs.

The release of the Iraq Study Group Report has generated a lot of comment, much of it critical.

The report is "pie in the sky" and its recommendations will not work.

The recommendations leave Ralph Peters incensed.

In the New York Times, Michael Gordon actually talks to military men, including those on the Iraq Study Group's military advisory panel, and they think the recommendations do not fit the military reality on the ground.

George Will thinks the report has already been overtaken by reality.

Robert Kagan says the report misses the obvious...its the security situation, stupid.

All of these comments have one thing in common. The bi-partisan commission was made up of politicians. Only one member has a military background, Chuck Robb, and that was as a young Marine in Vietnam. The did exactly what one would expect of a group of 60+ Washington insiders...reach a middle-of-the-road consensus. That's great in the give and take of domestic politics, but it won't work when fighting a war. Wars are not won with consensus or middle-of-the-road solutions. Wars are won with boldness, aggression, savagery. So far, our enemies seem to have all of those attributes in spades, while our political leaders seem to be better described with words like timidity, passivity, and weakness.

If George W. Bush were to order an all-out attack by the U.S. military against the sectarian militias, starting with the Mahdi Army, using airpower, artillery and armor, the images would be horrific, the Washington insiders would howl, and his approval ratings would GO UP. Oh, and by the way, he would go a long way toward winning the war. But I won't hold my breath. I'm getting resigned to the fact that when I voted for George W. Bush, twice, I was helping to elect the most disastrous President since Lyndon Johnson. The irony is that, unlike Johnson, Bush had the right idea in Iraq, but not the competence or the will.

Check out Derrick Jackson's annual report card on the graduation rate of the major college football powers.

Dick Morris says Hillary Clinton can win the Presidency, but shouldn't.

David Ignatius explains the price of Iran's help in Iraq....U.S. withdrawal.

All they have to do is wait us out, and they know it.

Michael Rubin, who was an insider during part of the Iraqi occupation, has this article on the National Review website that goes over the many mistakes that were made after the fall of Baghdad, and before.

John Podhoretz says we can only win in Iraq if we are willing to kill the bad guys.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that the U.S. will not carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Also writing in the Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick says the Saudi peace plan will mean the destruction of Israel.

Mort Zuckerman says the Iranian Mullahs present the potential for the worst crisis since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 if they acquire nuclear weapons.

Andrew Bacevich says that the situation in Iraq is more complicated than just a civil war. While I believe he is correct, he does not offer any solutions.

Fareed Zakaria says Afghanistan could be next to follow the path of Iraq. The reason? The policies of the Pakistani government, which is helping to keep the Taliban alive and in business. Americans hate this complicated, limited kind of war. Just as they have grown tired of Iraq, if things continue to deteriorate in Afghanistan, they will grow tired of that, as well.

Michael Barone thinks that President Bush will stick to his guns about Iraq, whatever the Iraq Study Group recommends. Bob Novak thinks the group will limit the President's options, but that he might find opportunity, as well.

George Will describes America's moral duty in Iraq. Essentially, win or get out.

That, of course, is the bottom line. The American people have grown tired of the war that shows no sign of ending, or even any way to end it. Many just want to get our troops out, but many others would be willing to back an all-out effort to win, if it was explained properly and seemed logical and possible. It seems that President Bush is unwilling to put the resources necessary into an effort to achieve a military victory, and it is possible that he no longer has sufficient credibility to get the backing of the public were he to try and do so. It may very well be that the only moral course of action is to accept defeat and retreat to more defensible lines.

HELTER SKELTER

The Iraq Study group will recommend pulling out most U.S. combat troops from Iraq by early 2008, according to this story from the Washington Post. American troops will remain in Iraq as advisors, according to the story. After the recent meeting with President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said he expected Iraqi government forces would be able to take over more responsibility by June of '07. I think everybody is smoking the pipe of wishful thinking. Any significant drawdown of U.S. troops will blow the lid off the pot in Iraq. The only reason the country has not descended into a Lebanese-style civil war writ large, a war of all against all as Pat Buchanan puts it, is because the U.S. military is still capable of smashing any attempted power grabs by any given militia. Once the U.S. force has reached a low enough level, whatever that level might be, I expect al Sadr to try and grab power, which would unleash a true civil war. But, of course, this is all just delaying the inevitable. If President Bush rejects the recommendations, and keeps substantial forces in Iraq through 2008, the next President will certainly withdraw them in 2009 or 2010, and we'll get the civil war, anyway. According to Robin Wright, also in the Post, some folks in the State Department want the military to stop its outreach program to the Sunni insurgents, and just throw our lot in with the Shia and the Kurds. It sounds simple, but it would certainly result in the intervention of the Saudis to protect their Sunni brethren. I still expect at the very least an all-out civil war in Iraq and, very probably, a significant regional war that could lead to the big, global war I have been predicting.