Andrew Hagen

When Ambassador Paul Bremer led the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, it was US policy to not allow Islamic sharia law into the Iraq constitution. (*) Now that Iraq has its sovereignty, and is governed partially by elected officials, a new constitution is drafted that will make sharia part of the Iraq constitution, significantly reducing women’s rights. (†) The US should tell the government that we will not accept this, and we will remove most of our economic aid to Iraq and accelerate troop withdrawal unless it is removed. Sharia should serve no more than a heritage or background role in Iraqi law.

Women had some rights under Saddam, but those were often unenforced and unprotected.

Most likely, the Bush Administration will not risk offending the Iraqi government. Iraqi women will have a chance to vote down this overmastering draft constitution, however. Let’s hope they do.

The Q and O Blog states that the kill ratio for the US in Iraq is about 100 to 1, and he notes that military planners disregard this ratio as for the most part unimportant. (*) This is probably a decent ballpark estimate. I tend to agree with the kill ratio being unimportant. It was taken as a very important statistic in the Vietnam War, but the focus on that number did not help achieve our war aims there.

I have no military training or experience. Please take this with a trainload of salt.

The basic problem we face in Iraq is that we are not achieving our strategic objectives as quickly as we might. In particular, I’m interested here in the goals of locating and destroying terrorist networks in Iraq.

A common complaint against our Iraq war effort is that we have had too few troops. I take a different position here.

Technology makes for one of the US’s decisive battlefield advantages. In essence, battlefield technology is a force multiplier. Smaller numbers of better-equipped troops have the same or greater effectiveness as larger numbers of poorer-equipped troops.

In a battle with equal numbers of troops to a side, and a technological advantage strongly on one of the sides, that side will have the advantage. Technology is so critical that with sufficiently advantageous technology, a low number of troops can defeat a high number of troops.

In modern, fourth-generation warfare, the holder of superior information has a key battlefield advantage. Information is not limited to hi-tech communication networks, however. Information can traverse low-tech networks, including networks of human couriers, and be managed with various wetware methods.

Superior technology does not necessarily result in superior information. Small groups of committed individuals are more likely to learn new information, particularly wetware information, and more likely to be able to react to the new information quickly. This is one reason why a decentralized command structure is often thought superior in 4GW.

The high kill ratio in Iraq may be evidence that US troops are deployed in units of too great a size for maximum effectiveness. Smaller deployments may result in more rapid information gathering and reactions to terrorist groups. Technology should protect the troops, but the kill ratio would likely decrease somewhat. Smaller deployments could achieve strategic objectives sooner, shortening the war, and resulting in an overall lower death rate for US troops.

In summary, the high kill ratio may be evidence that smaller, more autonomous deployments could be a good choice in thie current context. On the other hand, it might not. Perhaps this could be of some assistance to the war effort.

Again, I am far removed from any expertise or actual knowledge.

Columnist Diana West argues that to defeat jihad and achieve victory in the global war, we must first undercut multiculturalism. (*)

It does appear that the crazy dream of everyone living in harmony is exposed for what it is now, and can no longer be taken seriously by any reasonable person.

This notion of multiculturalism as a foundation stone for modern jihad is interesting. It’s worthy of further development.

This story is somewhat of a blip, but there are two important points. A Saudi prince has purchased 5%, apparently of News Corp., the parent company of the conservative Fox News. This leads to a concern of conservatives that their favorite news source will acquire an Islamist tilt. (*)

Most countries have laws about how much foreign ownership of media properties are allowed. If this investment actually becomes a threat to the free flow of information, or creates an Islamist tilt in the media, then perhaps those laws in the US or elsewhere need adjustment.

More to the point, until we put together an energy independence project, Middle East oil money will continue to result in greater political economic iinfluence for Islamists, and more indirectly, financial backing for terrorists and jihadists.

We can’t win the war while funding both sides.

The government of Ontario, Canada has come to the wise decision that Islamic sharia law should not be allowed in the province. (*) Under sharia, women are overmastered and subdued by men and officialdom. It is too bad that women were not given the right to vote on whether they would be overmastered by sharia, but at least the government came to the right decision.

For the purpose of making the law more uniform, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim family law arbitration will all be invalidated, at least for future decisions. Ontario has chosen multiculturalism and secular law, which together are better than multiculturalism and parochial law.

In a “60 Minutes” report, Pakistani officials state that Osama Bin Laden is cut off from communications with the outside world, except for a penetrated courier network. Bin Laden doesn’t move from a single location on the Afghan-Pakistani border. (*)

The report is believable. Most likely the continued pressure on Osama Bin Laden will continue until he is either captured or is no longer alive. We are already in a new stage in the global war on terrorism and jihad. In this new stage, jihad does not yet have a single identifiable leader. This is an opportunity, a weakness of jihad, that the forces for justice should rush to exploit.

Iraqi President Jalal Talibani writes: (*)

American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Your soldiers are in my country because of your commitment to democracy. Moreover, [there is the] United States’ complete support for the Iraqi political process toward sustainable democracy, and for the fight to defeat fascist and jihadist terrorism in Iraq.

That commitment to liberty has shaped our opposition to any timetable for withdrawal. There are also two practical, policy reasons to avoid such a scheduled reduction in foreign troop numbers. First, a timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they have to do is wait. Second, military plans must be flexible. We should have the suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist threat. Indeed, we will require ongoing security assistance in many forms for many years to come.

If we keep progressing at the present rate, Iraqis may be able to take over many security functions from foreign forces by the end of 2006. That is not a deadline, but it is reasonable aspiration. . . .

Americans should be proud of what its soldiers have achieved. The presence of foreign forces has prevented a renewed civil war in Iraq–renewed because there has already been a civil war in Iraq. For 35 years, Saddam and his Baath Party made war on the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq ended that civil war. . . .

While the problem of some of our neighbors supporting terrorism is bad enough, we can only imagine what our neighbors might have done if American troops had not been present. Most likely, Iraq would have been transformed into a regional battlefield with disastrous consequences for Middle Eastern and global security.

Without American forces, the vision of American leadership and the quiet fortitude of the American people, Iraqis would be almost alone in the world.

(emphasis added) Let me summarize why we are staying to finish the job in Iraq.

America remains in Iraq because our friends, the Iraqi people, would otherwise face all-out war, jihad, and repression at least as repugnant as that under Saddam.

We are there because Iraqis are our friends and our friends are in need.

Additionally, by helping to cultivate a peaceful and stable Iraq, we cultivate a peaceful and stable Middle East, and a peaceful and stable world.

This is our noble cause in Iraq.

God bless our troops over there, and around the world.

Harold Kushner, rabbi laureate of the Temple Israel in Natick, Massachusetts, has an interesting talk on religion and culture, downloadable from Minnesota Public Radio. (*)

Due to a spam attack, comments are disabled temporarily.

Update: September 25, 2005. Re-enabled.

In an unbelievable, shocking outrage, the design of the 9/11 Flight 93 Memorial is revealed to be a gigantic red crescent, a common symbol of Islam, plastered over the field where the commercial passenger airplane crashed. (*)

The wickedness and evil of this desecration is unspeakable. They have painted the symbol of their murderers over the graves of our fallen heroes.

There is no alternative except to overturn this “memorial” and start over with a new designer.

Update: To protest, send a fax to the Superintendent of the National Flight 93 Memorial, National Park Service, (814) 443-2180.

The September 11 Digital Archive is an effort to preserve forever the memory of the mass murder perpetrated on American soil four years ago. (*)

The Christian Science Monitor has a story on the hurricane’s effect on the economy, currently growing at a 3.3% annual rate. (*)

The macroeconomic challenges are many. Rising energy prices will have an inflationary effect, even as fuel shortages may disrupt supply chains causing shortages, especially in consumer goods. With the federal budget deficit and trade deficit being nearly out of control, the Fed probably can’t lower interest rates much if at all.

President Bush should take the initiative to use this event as a catalyst to bolster efforts to free America from our dependence on foreign oil.

Price caps should not even be considered. A large profit margin in the oil drilling and pumping business helps everyone in the long-run, because it will attract investment capital to develop more energy resources for the country.

The risk is unfortunately very real of the US economy slowing or even slipping into a recession.