1. Roggio at The Long War Journal says we were going after the Terrorist Formerly Known As Badran Turki Hishan al Mazidih, Abu Ghadiya. Dunno if we got the bastard.
2. Arab Media Shack thinks Syria was okay with the incursion, simply because they're worried about some of the more unseemly terrorists starting to congregate in their country.
3. Coming Anarchy lists a few options that all are basically U.S.-centric. Either something reeeal bad was going to happen, or this is a shot-cross-the-bow kind of message to the Assad-thugs in Damascus.
I posted a comment at Abu Muqawama with my thoughts. Basically, I think higher-ups in the U.S. military realize the intransigence of some of these Middle Eastern borders. They're thinking "to hell with this" and just acting.
Syria has been allowing thousands of insurgents to move across the border into Iraq, apparently willing to do nothing to stem the flow. They'll also probably do nothing because of this U.S. attack either, besides the usual keeling and crowd-surfing-coffin-funerals.
-- In another post on Coming Anarchy, there's a review/preview of the HBO miniseries "House of Saddam" which I'm seeing, most def. It sounds like it will be fairly honest about the monster. This is a great retort to some Left-wing moral equivalency:
The film can be enjoyed by those of all political outlooks. For the UK’s Daily Telegraph, a review states that Saddam “gave the impression that he was a man with total conviction in the rightness of what he was doing. Which conjured two more, somewhat uneasy comparisons: Messrs Bush and Blair when they went to war with him.”I take the opposite view: the utter debauchery of the Hussein family and administration is so complete in every aspect that it confirms the righteousness of the Iraq War that toppled Hussein (emphasis mine -- S.). Many will disagree with that from the left and the right, but it’s frankly never been clearer.
I'd say that the above quote is what Election-geddon '08 should be about, but it doesn't matter at this point. No one's listening, from either side.
-- Speaking of the Throwdown of the Lowdown, Megan McArdle has a great post on some of the more zealous police-state-ish types in the Obama camp. Apparently some of them don't care for observers pointing out the deep-seated corruption in the Obama fundraising, and want to hush up the critics. Enter McArdle:
Yes, I still support Obama, and I have no reason to think that the error was deliberate. But that doesn't mean that I think the Obama team has a right to have its errors protected from public exposure.
That lady is almost criminally reliably awesome. She needs to slow down, she's making us look bad. The Atlantic has an almost perfect stable of bloggers now. One of them is past-his-prime and needs to be set out to pasture.
-- Ignatius has an okay boiler-plate-ish column on negotiating with the Taliban. There's so much already out there on the pros-and-cons of negotiating, but let me just offer a quick observ:
After WWII American leaders were excoriated for recruiting and employing former Nazis as U.S. actors in Europe against the Soviets. I'm not really sure what was the right move at the time, but most people nowadays think that it was pretty sleazy and morally corrupt.
May I ask, what's different now? Where's the outrage at such a "realist" idea as talks with the Taliban? Why do I sense an inconsistency here, that those who criticize America for past behavior are also smugly cheering on negotiations with cretinous warlords who systematically abuse and murder women?
-- Glad to see it. Throw 'em on the pile, keep on moving. We have to clear before we can rebuild.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment