BoldlyRide

Here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593301/from/ET/ is the real threat.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, even North Korea are minor affairs compared to this looming problem:

"China will have 30 million more men of marriageable age than women... The tens of millions of men who will not be able to find a wife could also lead to social instability problems..."

What to do with those 30 million extra men -- I don't think the Chinese are interested in forming a peace corp.

You heard it here first: The world blood bath will have its source in Beijing.

China is a prospering nation, building up infrastructure and technology. Billions of U.S. dollars pour into the Chinese economy every year. Although China has prospered by adopting some of the trappings of Capitalism, it is Communism that rules, wielding both the sword and the purse strings. When the boom hits an inevitable bust cycle, the rest of the world will learn how China will avoid its "social instability problems."

This article from July 2005
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20050701.htm
by Kenneth M. Pollack proposed 5 steps to win back Iraq:
1. Build up the infrastructure and protect the Iraqi civilians: "de-emphasize chasing insurgents around the Sunni Triangle, and to instead put a higher priority on protecting Iraqis as they go about their daily lives."
2. Increase manpower: "Achieving these goals will require more than the 155,000 troops in the country, and it is time for the Bush administration to bite the bullet, whether by deploying additional standing forces, calling up reserves, or spurring recruitment by increasing pay and benefits (and maybe even providing a rationale that the American people would buy)." And also patrol on foot with the Iraqis
3. Give the Iraqis more time to train and have them deploy in formations with our troops.
4. Decentralize by getting beyond Baghdad.
5. Follow the tradition in the middle east of buying off the tribal leaders "to refrain from attacking the roads and government facilities and to keep other groups from doing so. Already some prominent Sunni sheiks have made overtures to the American authorities and the Iraqi government; they are willing to keep the peace if the price is right."

Here, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/615hksxa.asp William J. Stuntz gives three reasons for increasing our forces in Iraq: "First, experience may suggest that more men and more materiel will lead to better results. Second, the value of victory or the cost of defeat may justify a greater investment in the fight. And third, time may be on the enemy's side: Sometimes victory must be won soon if it is to be won at all."

Here, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/03/fighting_to_win_in_iraq/
Jeff Jacoby argues for sending more troops to Iraq: "Sending in significant reinforcements would not only make it possible to kill more of the terrorists, thugs, and assassins who are responsible for Iraq's chaos. It would help reassure Iraqis that the Washington is not planning to leave them in the lurch, as it did so ignominiously in 1991. The violence in Iraq is surging precisely because Iraqis fear that the Americans are getting ready to throw in the towel. That is why "they have turned to their own sectarian armed groups for the protection the Bush administration has failed to provide," Robert Kagan and William Kristol write in The Weekly Standard. "That, and not historical inevitability or the alleged failings of the Iraqi people, is what has brought Iraq closer to civil war."

In part two, Jacoby ridicules the appeasement/pull out recommendations.

Greg Palast posits here http://www.gregpalast.com/are-us-corporations-going-to-%E2%80%9Cwin%E2%80%9D-the-iraq-war that the way to win the war is by turning the reconstruction over to Iraqi rather than American companies.

Information and opinions on how to win in Iraq.

I don't have an ounce of faith in John McCain, but his old article on the subject http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14254-2003Nov7?language=printer
seems to be a legitimate starting point. He makes some good points but falls short on the details of his plan to commit at least another division. He does seem to favor a search and destroy campaign against the insurgents.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84508/andrew-f-krepinevich-jr/how-to-win-in-iraq.html In this article from 2005, Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., suggests "an "oil-spot strategy" in Iraq, ... Rather than focusing on killing insurgents, they should concentrate on providing security and opportunity to the Iraqi people, thereby denying insurgents the popular support they need. Since the U.S. and Iraqi armies cannot guarantee security to all of Iraq simultaneously, they should start by focusing on certain key areas and then, over time, broadening the effort -- hence the image of an expanding oil spot. Such a strategy would have a good chance of success. But it would require a protracted commitment of U.S. resources, a willingness to risk more casualties in the short term, and an enduring U.S. presence in Iraq, albeit at far lower force levels than are engaged at present. If U.S. policymakers and the American public are unwilling to make such a commitment, they should be prepared to scale down their goals in Iraq significantly."

Krepinevich proposes this "hearts and minds" strategy to win the American people, the Iraqi people and the American soldier -- as opposed to a campaign to hunt insurgents. He admits that this strategy takes a great deal of time. Each "spot" would still require an anti-insurgent campaign followed by fortification and training of the Iraqi's within the area to increase security so reconstruction could begin. Krepinevich maintains that this strategy could be effectively carried out with fewer troops than the 140,000 in Iraq at the time he wrote the article.

The other pillar of Krepinevich's strategy is the Grand Bargain - a coalition of Iraqi interest groups. "The grand bargain would cut across key Iraqi religious and ethnic groups and across key tribal and familial units. Its underlying assumptions would be that there are significant elements of each major ethnic and religious group willing to support a democratic, unified Iraq; that a sufficiently broad coalition can be formed, over time, to achieve this end; and that the United States is willing to undertake a long-term effort, lasting a decade or longer, to ensure the grand bargain's success. " With the success of the grand bargain, U.S. troops could be scaled back to 60,000 or less.

I don't know if this piece on "Why Military Occupations Fail" gives any strategy for winning in Iraq, but it looks interesting. http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/isec_29_1_49_0.pdf I'll have to read and summarize it in another post.

There is also a stick figure presentation out there (see ABC news for it) that makes some simple points -- but I think it is too simplistic. I think Krepinevich's suggestion includes and goes beyond stick figures concepts.

This piece http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/how-to-winlose-the-war-in-iraq.htm advocates replacing the soldiers with a paramilitary police force.

This blog entry by Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/ten-things-congress-could-demand-from.html lays out a 10 step plan -- the first two steps are to withdraw nearly all of the ground troops. The remaining steps propose helping the Iraqi's with air power, weapons, and training. -- Really nothing more than a glorified cut and run proposal.

This August 2005 piece by Gen. Wesley Clark is long on criticism and short, in that old familiar way, on specifics for winning http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623.html. It concludes with the cut and run solution.

This piece by Fred Gedrich and Paul E. Vallely http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061227-092444-4051r.htm advocates putting the special forces in charge and letting the conventional military play a back up role.

More to come

Some of the political parties in France are using the internet for their party primaries:

"Though many French parties were on the Web in the last presidential elections in 2002, the impact of political sites has skyrocketed during this campaign, helping change the way politics are done here. "

All geared to making even quicker surrenders possible. After all, those rifles that have never been fired and only dropped once, still cost money to produce.

"Socialist candidate Segolene Royal has made her Web site the cornerstone of a campaign based on what she calls "participative democracy," with users invited to take part in a host of online forums and debates. Royal, a former minister, drew on online feedback in drafting her platform, which she released chapter by chapter on the Web site.
"Politics must be based on the realities of people's lives," Royal has said. "

But here are some interesting "realities" from later in the article:

"UMP members have been issued security codes that allow them to access the polls on its Web site, though it would be hard to throw a race with only one candidate."

"Most of France's 40 million voters are not party members and thus not eligible to vote in primaries. "

So the primary has one candidate and most voters are ineligible to participate anyway -- now that's democracy in action.

The Boise State Broncos football team remain undefeated 13-0. Will any other team go undefeated? The BSU victory over Nebraska was a great game. It's unfortunate that BSU tried to give the game away in the last quarter (with help from the officials making more than generous pass interference calls) but the way BSU came back to snatch the victory from Nebraska in the final seconds and on the gutsy overtime two point play probably made it more exciting than the Ohio - Florida game is going to be.

Wouldn't it have been nice to see two undefeated teams battling each other?