Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
This video is excellent. It is a talk by Col. Peter Mansoor about the Iraq war. Even the Q&A is good. Col. Mansoor was a brigade commander in Iraq, and he is now a military historian at Ohio State. He wrote a book about his experiences, Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander’s War in Iraq
Highly recommended.
UPDATE: The talk is extremely critical of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld and particularly Bremer. If you don’t want to hear that criticism, don’t listen.
Caroline Glick offers a grim preview of US policy towards Iran, Syria and Israel in the Age of Obama.
I used to think that Glick was shrill and alarmist. Unfortunately, she has been right about most of the big issues facing Israel since the late ’90s. We’ll know within a few months if she’s wrong now. I hope so, but I doubt it.
Fascinating essay over at Stratfor that details the hard decisions that Obama will have to make in the first few months after taking office.
I found the analysis of the situation in Afghanistan to be particularly interesting. Obama has promised to forge a coalition of NATO allies to help win the war there, as well as take some of the burden off of our own troops. I have always figured that to be a pipe dream since most of the European governments have cut back military budgets to the point that they simply cannot project force beyond their own borders without significant help from the Anglosphere, particularly the United States. What good will it do for President Obama to go to the Europeans, hat in hand, and ask for a greater military commitment when there simply is no military for them to commit?
Many of the people I know in the US military have expressed similar thoughts to me. It seems to be weighing rather heavily on their minds of late.
Anyway, there really is nothing that I can add that would be of any use. Click on that link at the top of this post to read it for yourself.
(Hat tip to Shooter.)
The Russian Navy has had another horrible accident aboard a submarine. Some 20 sailors have died and many others were “poisoned”. It is very difficult from the article to tell why. From the article:
The deaths were caused by a Freon gas leak that occurred when the fire-control system was activated yesterday, according to a preliminary investigation by the Russian Prosecutor’s Office, Vesti reported, citing Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Prosecutor’s investigative committee.
Huh? I don’t know a lot about submarine construction, but I do know a lot about “Freon”. Freon is a trade name used by the DuPont corporation for refrigerants. There are many different types of refrigerants, and “Freon” doesn’t describe which one. Most refrigerants that are commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioning applications are non flammable and very low in toxicity. I can see how people in the sub would suffer greatly if a large refrigerant leak occurred, as there is only so far refrigerant can go in such a small space. But you would think a modern sub would have some sort of way to replace their air with stored oxygen.
Lastly, modern refrigerants operate under pressure, and are closed systems. How did a faulty fire control system rupture a refrigerant line?
It may be a poor translation of an article originally in Russian (too bad I don’t have it or Tatyana or John Jay could take a look at it) or just the Russian news service providing scarce details provided them by the Russian Navy. Any way you slice it, the article makes little to no sense.
I feel for the families of the Russian sailors and wish them the best. I also hope that the Russian navy starts to maintain their sub fleet a little better so I don’t have to keep reading about their sailors losing their lives.
George W. Bush is history’s president, a man for whom the long-term success or failure of democracy in Iraq will determine his place in history. He may end up a victim of his own tough choices, but the cheerleading for his demise when Iraq’s outcome is yet determined has hurt America and possibly set up the next president for the same appalling partisan response.
The fact that the United States has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001, far exceeds the most wishful expert predictions of the time. Perhaps facing another al Qaeda-led barrage would have reinforced our need for national unity, caused us to recognize the gravity of the Islamist threat and fortified Mr. Bush’s standing at home and abroad.
Yet, thankfully, that never happened. And Mr. Bush has been punished for this obvious success.
By most accounts, al Qaeda is reeling from the damage inflicted by our efforts against the once-thriving terror network. Yet reflexive enemies of the president – including Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee – shamefully mock him for not having caught Osama bin Laden.
It’s a playground taunt from the same people who never seriously advocated for a strong military foray into the regions where bin Laden could have been caught. These Daily Kos armchair generals also rhetorically ask why we don’t invade North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Yet no one takes this hypothetical warmongering seriously, or expects a President Obama to go on the offense in any of these conveniently preferable hot spots. It’s meant to hurt, not help, the president.
While President Bush has been marshaling a multinational force to take on modernity’s enemies in foreign lands, the American left has decided to go to war against not only Republicans but also moderate Democrats.
Bush hatred was a fait accompli.
Back in November 2000, when Al Gore contested Florida and the demonizing of George Bush began full-bore (“President Select,” “Bush Chimp,” “the illegitimate president”), I told Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, “You watch, the Democratic Party will never grant Bush his humanity, and they will never let up.”
And they never did.