The Islamists Cast Their Ballot In Mumbai

This is an interesting article published by Stratfor, a private open source intelligence and analysis company. This article talks about the recent attacks in Mumbai, India by what appears to be radical Islamists from Pakistan. This is very interesting as it is happening on the verge of a power change in the U.S. and this will certainly have an effect on our strategy in Afghanistan. Basically India has to do something to repsond to these attacks since their government is already extremly weak and if not response is shown they will almost certainly fall and be replaced by a far more nationalist government. However, any type of confrontation with Pakistan isn't particularly desirable with Pakistan being a large nation which would be hard to control and they have nuclear weapons. The U.S. will have something to say as they might attempt to mediate again as they did in the 2001-2002 crisis, but the U.S. needs some sort of cooperation from Pakistan in order to facilitate success in the Petraeus and Obama plans for Afghanistan. Anyways, that is a brief summary and this will be very interesting to see it unfold over the enxt several days or so. As a side note Stratfor is a very god website for international analysis.

Hopps
41

By George Friedman

Related Special Topic Page

• Militant Attacks In Mumbai and Their Consequences

Last Wednesday evening, a group of Islamist operatives carried out a complex terror operation in the Indian city of Mumbai. The attack was not complex because of the weapons used or its size, but in the apparent training, multiple methods of approaching the city and excellent operational security and discipline in the final phases of the operation, when the last remaining attackers held out in the Taj Mahal hotel for several days. The operational goal of the attack clearly was to cause as many casualties as possible, particularly among Jews and well-to-do guests of five-star hotels. But attacks on various other targets, from railroad stations to hospitals, indicate that the more general purpose was to spread terror in a major Indian city.

While it is not clear precisely who carried out the Mumbai attack, two separate units apparently were involved. One group, possibly consisting of Indian Muslims, was established in Mumbai ahead of the attacks. The second group appears to have just arrived. It traveled via ship from Karachi, Pakistan, later hijacked a small Indian vessel to get past Indian coastal patrols, and ultimately landed near Mumbai.

Extensive preparations apparently had been made, including surveillance of the targets. So while the precise number of attackers remains unclear, the attack clearly was well-planned and well-executed.

Evidence and logic suggest that radical Pakistani Islamists carried out the attack. These groups have a highly complex and deliberately amorphous structure. Rather than being centrally controlled, ad hoc teams are created with links to one or more groups. Conceivably, they might have lacked links to any group, but this is hard to believe. Too much planning and training were involved in this attack for it to have been conceived by a bunch of guys in a garage. While precisely which radical Pakistani Islamist group or groups were involved is unknown, the Mumbai attack appears to have originated in Pakistan. It could have been linked to al Qaeda prime or its various franchises and/or to Kashmiri insurgents.

More important than the question of the exact group that carried out the attack, however, is the attackers’ strategic end. There is a tendency to regard terror attacks as ends in themselves, carried out simply for the sake of spreading terror. In the highly politicized atmosphere of Pakistan’s radical Islamist factions, however, terror frequently has a more sophisticated and strategic purpose. Whoever invested the time and took the risk in organizing this attack had a reason to do so. Let’s work backward to that reason by examining the logical outcomes following this attack.

An End to New Delhi’s Restraint

The most striking aspect of the Mumbai attack is the challenge it presents to the Indian government — a challenge almost impossible for New Delhi to ignore. A December 2001 Islamist attack on the Indian parliament triggered an intense confrontation between India and Pakistan. Since then, New Delhi has not responded in a dramatic fashion to numerous Islamist attacks against India that were traceable to Pakistan. The Mumbai attack, by contrast, aimed to force a response from New Delhi by being so grievous that any Indian government showing only a muted reaction to it would fall.

India’s restrained response to Islamist attacks (even those originating in Pakistan) in recent years has come about because New Delhi has understood that, for a host of reasons, Islamabad has been unable to control radical Pakistani Islamist groups. India did not want war with Pakistan; it felt it had more important issues to deal with. New Delhi therefore accepted Islamabad’s assurances that Pakistan would do its best to curb terror attacks, and after suitable posturing, allowed tensions originating from Islamist attacks to pass.

This time, however, the attackers struck in such a way that New Delhi couldn’t allow the incident to pass. As one might expect, public opinion in India is shifting from stunned to furious. India’s Congress party-led government is politically weak and nearing the end of its life span. It lacks the political power to ignore the attack, even if it were inclined to do so. If it ignored the attack, it would fall, and a more intensely nationalist government would take its place. It is therefore very difficult to imagine circumstances under which the Indians could respond to this attack in the same manner they have to recent Islamist attacks.

What the Indians actually will do is not clear. In 2001-2002, New Delhi responded to the attack on the Indian parliament by moving forces close to the Pakistani border and the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, engaging in artillery duels along the front, and bringing its nuclear forces to a high level of alert. The Pakistanis made a similar response. Whether India ever actually intended to attack Pakistan remains unclear, but either way, New Delhi created an intense crisis in Pakistan.

The U.S. and the Indo-Pakistani Crisis

The United States used this crisis for its own ends. Having just completed the first phase of its campaign in Afghanistan, Washington was intensely pressuring Pakistan’s then-Musharraf government to expand cooperation with the United States; purge its intelligence organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), of radical Islamists; and crack down on al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Afghan-Pakistani border region. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had been reluctant to cooperate with Washington, as doing so inevitably would spark a massive domestic backlash against his government.

The crisis with India produced an opening for the United States. Eager to get India to stand down from the crisis, the Pakistanis looked to the Americans to mediate. And the price for U.S. mediation was increased cooperation from Pakistan with the United States. The Indians, not eager for war, backed down from the crisis after guarantees that Islamabad would impose stronger controls on Islamist groups in Kashmir.

In 2001-2002, the Indo-Pakistani crisis played into American hands. In 2008, the new Indo-Pakistani crisis might play differently. The United States recently has demanded increased Pakistani cooperation along the Afghan border. Meanwhile, President-elect Barack Obama has stated his intention to focus on Afghanistan and pressure the Pakistanis.

Therefore, one of Islamabad’s first responses to the new Indo-Pakistani crisis was to announce that if the Indians increased their forces along Pakistan’s eastern border, Pakistan would be forced to withdraw 100,000 troops from its western border with Afghanistan. In other words, threats from India would cause Pakistan to dramatically reduce its cooperation with the United States in the Afghan war. The Indian foreign minister is flying to the United States to meet with Obama; obviously, this matter will be discussed among others.

We expect the United States to pressure India not to create a crisis, in order to avoid this outcome. As we have said, the problem is that it is unclear whether politically the Indians can afford restraint. At the very least, New Delhi must demand that the Pakistani government take steps to make the ISI and Pakistan’s other internal security apparatus more effective. Even if the Indians concede that there was no ISI involvement in the attack, they will argue that the ISI is incapable of stopping such attacks. They will demand a purge and reform of the ISI as a sign of Pakistani commitment. Barring that, New Delhi will move troops to the Indo-Pakistani frontier to intimidate Pakistan and placate Indian public opinion.

Dilemmas for Islamabad, New Delhi and Washington

At that point, Islamabad will have a serious problem. The Pakistani government is even weaker than the Indian government. Pakistan’s civilian regime does not control the Pakistani military, and therefore does not control the ISI. The civilians can’t decide to transform Pakistani security, and the military is not inclined to make this transformation. (Pakistan’s military has had ample opportunity to do so if it wished.)

Pakistan faces the challenge, just one among many, that its civilian and even military leadership lack the ability to reach deep into the ISI and security services to transform them. In some ways, these agencies operate under their own rules. Add to this the reality that the ISI and security forces — even if they are acting more assertively, as Islamabad claims — are demonstrably incapable of controlling radical Islamists in Pakistan. If they were capable, the attack on Mumbai would have been thwarted in Pakistan. The simple reality is that in Pakistan’s case, the will to make this transformation does not seem to be present, and even if it were, the ability to suppress terror attacks isn’t there.

The United States might well want to limit New Delhi’s response. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is on her way to India to discuss just this. But the politics of India’s situation make it unlikely that the Indians can do anything more than listen. It is more than simply a political issue for New Delhi; the Indians have no reason to believe that the Mumbai operation was one of a kind. Further operations like the Mumbai attack might well be planned. Unless the Pakistanis shift their posture inside Pakistan, India has no way of knowing whether other such attacks can be stymied. The Indians will be sympathetic to Washington’s plight in Afghanistan and the need to keep Pakistani troops at the Afghan border. But New Delhi will need something that the Americans — and in fact the Pakistanis — can’t deliver: a guarantee that there will be no more attacks like this one.

The Indian government cannot chance inaction. It probably would fall if it did. Moreover, in the event of inactivity and another attack, Indian public opinion probably will swing to an uncontrollable extreme. If an attack takes place but India has moved toward crisis posture with Pakistan, at least no one can argue that the Indian government remained passive in the face of threats to national security. Therefore, India is likely to refuse American requests for restraint.

It is possible that New Delhi will make a radical proposal to Rice, however. Given that the Pakistani government is incapable of exercising control in its own country, and given that Pakistan now represents a threat to both U.S. and Indian national security, the Indians might suggest a joint operation with the Americans against Pakistan.

What that joint operation might entail is uncertain, but regardless, this is something that Rice would reject out of hand and that Obama would reject in January 2009. Pakistan has a huge population and nuclear weapons, and the last thing Bush or Obama wants is to practice nation-building in Pakistan. The Indians, of course, will anticipate this response. The truth is that New Delhi itself does not want to engage deep in Pakistan to strike at militant training camps and other Islamist sites. That would be a nightmare. But if Rice shows up with a request for Indian restraint and no concrete proposal — or willingness to entertain a proposal — for solving the Pakistani problem, India will be able to refuse on the grounds that the Americans are asking India to absorb a risk (more Mumbai-style attacks) without the United States’ willingness to share in the risk.

Setting the Stage for a New Indo-Pakistani Confrontation

That will set the stage for another Indo-Pakistani confrontation. India will push forces forward all along the Indo-Pakistani frontier, move its nuclear forces to an alert level, begin shelling Pakistan, and perhaps — given the seriousness of the situation — attack short distances into Pakistan and even carry out airstrikes deep in Pakistan. India will demand greater transparency for New Delhi in Pakistani intelligence operations. The Indians will not want to occupy Pakistan; they will want to occupy Pakistan’s security apparatus.

Naturally, the Pakistanis will refuse that. There is no way they can give India, their main adversary, insight into Pakistani intelligence operations. But without that access, India has no reason to trust Pakistan. This will leave the Indians in an odd position: They will be in a near-war posture, but will have made no demands of Pakistan that Islamabad can reasonably deliver and that would benefit India. In one sense, India will be gesturing. In another sense, India will be trapped by making a gesture on which Pakistan cannot deliver. The situation thus could get out of hand.

In the meantime, the Pakistanis certainly will withdraw forces from western Pakistan and deploy them in eastern Pakistan. That will mean that one leg of the Petraeus and Obama plans would collapse. Washington’s expectation of greater Pakistani cooperation along the Afghan border will disappear along with the troops. This will free the Taliban from whatever limits the Pakistani army had placed on it. The Taliban’s ability to fight would increase, while the motivation for any of the Taliban to enter talks — as Afghan President Hamid Karzai has suggested — would decline. U.S. forces, already stretched to the limit, would face an increasingly difficult situation, while pressure on al Qaeda in the tribal areas would decrease.

Now, step back and consider the situation the Mumbai attackers have created. First, the Indian government faces an internal political crisis driving it toward a confrontation it didn’t plan on. Second, the minimum Pakistani response to a renewed Indo-Pakistani crisis will be withdrawing forces from western Pakistan, thereby strengthening the Taliban and securing al Qaeda. Third, sufficient pressure on Pakistan’s civilian government could cause it to collapse, opening the door to a military-Islamist government — or it could see Pakistan collapse into chaos, giving Islamists security in various regions and an opportunity to reshape Pakistan. Finally, the United States’ situation in Afghanistan has now become enormously more complex.

By staging an attack the Indian government can’t ignore, the Mumbai attackers have set in motion an existential crisis for Pakistan. The reality of Pakistan cannot be transformed, trapped as the country is between the United States and India. Almost every evolution from this point forward benefits Islamists. Strategically, the attack on Mumbai was a precise blow struck to achieve uncertain but favorable political outcomes for the Islamists.

Rice’s trip to India now becomes the crucial next step. She wants Indian restraint. She does not want the western Pakistani border to collapse. But she cannot guarantee what India must have: assurance of no further terror attacks on India originating in Pakistan. Without that, India must do something. No Indian government could survive without some kind of action. So it is up to Rice, in one of her last acts as secretary of state, to come up with a miraculous solution to head off a final, catastrophic crisis for the Bush administration — and a defining first crisis for the new Obama administration. Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once said that the enemy gets a vote. The Islamists cast their ballot in Mumbai.

Posted with permission and attribution to Stratfor.

Another Language Cont.

Here is a neat article responding to Barack Obama's comments about American students not really being educated unless they know several languages. I would re-post it here except I can't because of copyright restrictions, however I would highly encourage you to head over and read it. It is only four short paragraphs and is quite interesting.

Barack Obama, language, and academic arrogance

Gary Loftis

Hopps
41

Another Language

Well, I thought I would do a quick post online that doesn't require much thinking or typing since I had my wisdom teeth removed this morning. So this is in about a video of Mr. Obama that was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh and Hot Air.

He is talking about our kids learning foreign languages, which there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but what he is saying is that it is more important for Americans to learn Spanish than for immigrants learn English.

Also while in Georgia he made these comments at a later townhall.
"Addressing a mostly African American crowd outside Atlanta, Obama joked, "You can’t find a job unless you are a really, really good basketball player. Which most of you brothers are not. I know you think you are. But you’re not. You are overrated in your own mind. You will not play in the NBA. You are probably not that good a rapper. Maybe you are the next Little Wayne, but probably not. In which case you need to stay in school.”

On a roll, Obama then said they’d be much more employable if they know a foreign language, and said we should be emphasizing foreign language study in classrooms. “It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup.”"

Here is the video.




Rush Limbaugh made this comment about it.
" Rather than urging people in our country to speak English, Lord Obama wants us all to speak Spanish. (He can't.) Urging Americans to speak foreign languages is perfectly fine, but in context of his other views, this is an indication of where his head is. He would prefer to be running for president of a Western European country. He's embarrassed by America."
"Obama wants our kids to learn Spanish. Fine and dandy. Let's teach them some other languages first: English, terrorism, Capitalism, and Marxist Socialism for starters."

I would recommend reading the article on hotair.com about it. Elitism is an interesting thing. Enjoy


Hopps
41

Quartz Composer Fun

I have recently been playing with a sweet little program that comes with Macs called Quartz Composer. It is a program for making live visual effects and Motion like graphics.

I have modified a basic example that came with it. It is something that could be projected onto the wall at say, a 41/G2 party. :-) It's obviously pretty basic, but I have just been playing with it today, and hopefully will be able to do more later.

Here is a screen shot of the visual code:


And, here is a video of it.


Have a good one.


Hopps
41

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Bear Arms

Just today the US Supreme Court has made a historical 5-4 ruling setting a precedent concerning the 2nd Amendment which has not been conclusively interpreted since its ratification in 1791. For those of you who don't know, this case, District of Columbia v. Heller, was because of Washington D.C.'s gun law, which has now been nullified by this ruling. It was among the strictest in the nation. Passed in 1976 it
"bar[ed] residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks."
FoxNews said "The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia."
But, it was determined it is an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the court's decision. (Yahoo! News)
This will have far reaching impacts as Sen Cornyn from Tx says, "The nation's top court made the correct decision by reaffirming one of our founding principles, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. This historic ruling has implications far beyond the District of Columbia." — Sen. John Cornyn R-Texas.
This law does not however provide for unlimited access to weapons. It won't cast doubt on most current guns laws, such as those that prevent convicted felons and mentally ill from owning one. The same with gun registration laws.


It is interesting to note some of the reactions to this ruling. :-)
There were positive reactions from both sides of the aisle:
"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right." —Sen. Patrick Leahy D-Vt.

"The right to bear arms is a fundamental right we enjoy as citizens of the United States. From individuals being able to protect their family and their home to sportsmen venturing into the outdoors, this is an important and historic day for all citizens of this great country." —Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.

"Today's ruling is a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be unreasonably infringed." — Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

"I think this is a long overdue decision; I don't think the precedent has been seriously reaffirmed in decades." — Sen. Russel Feingold, D-Wis.


And then there was also the typical left wing remarks:
"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it." — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

And this one particularly made me smile. One interesting thing to note is this ruling wasn't strictly "party lines." There are only 4 "conservative Justices" on the court and it was made in favor 5-4.
"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.


I am glad the court was willing to strictly interpret the US Constitution, and I hope they will continue to make this a practice in the future more than they have in the recent past.


Hopps
41

Why Are We Copying Europe?

For those of you who may not have heard. Today the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ruling in Louisiana that gave the death penalty to two men convicted of raping children. They declared the law unconstitutional. The ruling was 5-4 with the liberal "Europe Loving" Justices ruling for it, and the conservative Judges ruling against it. Quoted from Yahoo! news:

"Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions."

Unfortunately this is all turning into "...more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," says Bobby Jindal, and I would heartily agree.


The thing I find most interesting about this, and other rulings is the desire of these judges and others to copy what Europe does. Why should we just coy Europe because Europe is doing it? Because it is chic to be like Europe? Why don't we actually look at the results they have achieved with their policies and make our decisions based on that?
Here is an excellent article I was reading today from an Investor's Business Daily editorial. It talks about just this, and was I thought quite well done. I would highly recommend you read it.



Hopps
41

Israeli Training Exercise

As you may have heard if you have been listening to the news recently, the Israelis have done a relatively long distance training mission involving a large number of F-15 and F-16 warplanes. At first this has been reported as a warning and practice towards an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. This is an article that I thought was very interesting regarding this, and why that doesn't make sense. It is from Stratfor, an independent intelligence analyst company. This is reproduced with permission.


Hopps
41

Mediterranean Flyover: Telegraphing an Israeli Punch?

June 23, 2008

By George Friedman

On June 20, The New York Times published a report saying that more than 100 Israeli aircraft carried out an exercise in early June over the eastern Mediterranean Sea and Greece. The article pointed out that the distances covered were roughly the distances from Israel to Iranian nuclear sites and that the exercise was a trial run for a large-scale air strike against Iran. On June 21, the British newspaper The Times quoted Israeli military sources as saying that the exercise was a dress rehearsal for an attack on Iran. The Jerusalem Post, in covering these events, pointedly referred to an article it had published in May saying that Israeli intelligence had changed its forecast for Iran passing a nuclear threshold — whether this was simply the ability to cause an explosion under controlled conditions or the ability to produce an actual weapon was unclear — to 2008 rather than 2009.

The New York Times article, positioned on the front page, captured the attention of everyone from oil traders to Iran, which claimed that this was entirely psychological warfare on the part of the Israelis and that Israel could not carry out such an attack. It was not clear why the Iranians thought an attack was impossible, but they were surely right in saying that the exercise was psychological warfare. The Israelis did everything they could to publicize the exercise, and American officials, who obviously knew about the exercise but had not publicized it, backed them up. What is important to note is that the fact that this was psychological warfare — and fairly effective, given the Iranian response — does not mean that Israel is not going to attack. One has nothing to do with the other. So the question of whether there is going to be an attack must be analyzed carefully.

The first issue, of course, is what might be called the “red line.” It has always been expected that once the Iranians came close to a line at which they would become a capable nuclear power, the Americans or the Israelis would act to stop them, neither being prepared to tolerate a nuclear Iran. What has never been clear is what constitutes that red line. It could simply be having produced sufficient fissionable material to build a bomb, having achieved a nuclear explosion under test conditions in Iran or having approached the point of producing a deliverable nuclear weapon.

Early this month, reports circulated that A.Q. Khan, the former head of Pakistan’s nuclear program who is accused of selling nuclear technology to such countries as Libya, North Korea and Iran, had also possessed detailed design specifications and blueprints for constructing a nuclear weapon small enough to be mounted on missiles available to North Korea and Iran. The blueprints were found on a computer owned by a Swiss businessman, but the reports pointedly said that it was not known whether these documents had been transferred to Iran or any other country. It was interesting that the existence of the blueprints in Switzerland was known to the United States — and, we assume, Israel — in 2006 but that, at this point, there was no claim that they had been transferred.

Clearly, the existence of these documents — if Iran had a copy of them — would have helped the Iranians clear some hurdles. However, as we have pointed out, there is a huge gap between having enriched uranium and having a deliverable weapon, the creation of which requires technologies totally unrelated to each other. Ruggedizing and miniaturizing a nuclear device requires specializations from materials science to advanced electronics. Therefore, having enriched uranium or even triggering an underground nuclear device still leaves you a long way from having a weapon.

That’s why the leak on the nuclear blueprints is so important. From the Israeli and American point of view, those blueprints give the Iranians the knowledge of precisely how to ruggedize and miniaturize a nuclear device. But there are two problems here. First, if we were given blueprints for building a bridge, they would bring us no closer to building one. We would need experts in multiple disciplines just to understand the blueprints and thousands of trained engineers and workers to actually build the bridge. Second, the Israelis and Americans have known about the blueprints for two years. Even if they were certain that they had gotten to the Iranians — which the Israelis or Americans would certainly have announced in order to show the increased pressure at least one of them would be under to justify an attack — it is unclear how much help the blueprints would have been to the Iranians. The Jerusalem Post story implied that the Iranians were supposed to be c rossing an undefined line in 2009. It is hard to imagine that they were speeded up to 2008 by a document delivered in 2006, and that the Israelis only just noticed.

In the end, the Israelis may have intelligence indicating that the blueprints did speed things up, and that the Iranians might acquire nuclear weapons in 2008. We doubt that. But given the statements Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made over the years, the Israelis have to be planning based on worst-case scenarios. What the sum total of their leaks adds up to is an attempt to communicate widely that there is an increased urgency in dealing with Iran, based on intelligence that the Iranian program is farther along than previously thought.

The problem is the fact that the Israelis are communicating. In fact, they are going out of their way to communicate. That is extremely odd. If the Israelis were intending to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, they would want to be absolutely certain that as much of the equipment in the facilities was destroyed as possible. But the hard truth is that the heart of Iran’s capability, such as it is, does not reside in its facilities but in its scientists, engineers and technicians who collectively constitute the knowledge base of Iran’s nuclear program. Facilities can be replaced. It would take at least a generation to replace what we already regard as an insufficient cadre of expertise.

Therefore, if Israel wanted not simply to take out current facilities but to take Iran out of the nuclear game for a very long time, killing these people would have to be a major strategic goal. The Israelis would want to strike in the middle of the workday, without any warning whatever. If they strike Iran, they will be condemned widely for their actions. The additional criticism that would come from killing the workforce would not be a large price to pay for really destroying the Iranian capabilities. Unlike the Iraqi reactor strike in 1981, when the Israelis struck at night to minimize casualties, this strike against a more sophisticated program could not afford to be squeamish.

There are obviously parts of Iran’s nuclear capability that cannot be moved. There is other equipment that can be, with enough warning and with more or less difficulty, moved to unknown locations. But nothing would be easier to disperse than the heart of the program — the people. They could be moved out of harm’s way with only an hour’s notice. Therefore, providing warning that an attack was coming makes very little sense. It runs counter to basic principles of warfare. The Israelis struck the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 with not the slightest hint of the attack’s imminence. That was one of the reasons it was successful. Telegraphing your punch is not very smart in these circumstances.

The Israelis have done more than raise the possibility that an attack might be launched in 2008. They have publicized how they plan to do it. Based on the number and type of aircraft involved in the exercise — more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter jets — one Israeli attack scenario could involve a third of Israel’s inventory of fourth-generation strike aircraft, including most of its latest-model F-15I Ra’am and F-16I Sufa fighter bombers. If Greece were the target in this exercise, then the equivalent distance would mean that the Israelis are planning to cross Jordanian airspace, transit through Iraq and strike Iran from that direction. A strike through Turkey — and there is no indication that the Turks would permit it — would take much longer.

The most complex part of the operation’s logistics would be the refueling of aircraft. They would have to be orbiting in Iraqi airspace. One of the points discussed about the Mediterranean exercise was the role of Israeli helicopters in rescuing downed flyers. Rescue helicopters would be involved, but we doubt very much they would be entering Iranian airspace from Israel. They are a lot slower than the jets, and they would have to be moving hours ahead of time. The Iranians might not spot them but the Russians would, and there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t pass it on to the Iranians. That means that the Israeli helicopters would have to move quietly into Iraq and be based there.

And that means that this would have to be a joint American-Israeli operation. The United States controls Iraqi airspace, meaning that the Americans would have to permit Israeli tankers to orbit in Iraqi airspace. The search-and-rescue helicopters would have to be based there. And we strongly suspect that rescued pilots would not be ferried back to Israel by helicopter but would either be sent to U.S. hospitals in Iraq or transferred to Israeli aircraft in Iraq.

The point here is that, given the exercise the Israelis carried out and the distances involved, there is no way Israel could do this without the direct cooperation of the United States. From a political standpoint in the region, it is actually easier for the United States to take out Iran’s facilities than for it to help the Israelis do so. There are many Sunni states that might formally protest but be quite pleased to see the United States do the job. But if the Israelis were to do it, Sunni states would have to be much more serious in their protestations. In having the United States play the role of handmaiden in the Israeli operation, it would appear that the basic charge against the United States — that it is the handmaiden of the Israelis — is quite true. If the Americans are going to be involved in a strike against Iran’s nuclear program, they are far better off doing it themselves than playing a supporting role to Israel.

There is something not quite right in this whole story. The sudden urgency — replete with tales of complete blueprints that might be in Iranian hands — doesn’t make sense. We may be wrong, but we have no indication that Iran is that close to producing nuclear weapons. Second, the extreme publicity given the exercise in the Mediterranean, coming from both Israel and the United States, runs counter to the logic of the mission. Third, an attack on Iran through Iraqi airspace would create a political nightmare for the United States. If this is the Israeli attack plan, the Americans would appear to be far better off doing it themselves.

There are a number of possible explanations. On the question of urgency, the Israelis might have two things in mind. One is the rumored transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missiles from Russia to Iran. This transfer has been rumored for quite a while, but by all accounts has yet to happen. The S-300 is a very capable system, depending on the variety (and it is unclear which variety is being transferred), and it would increase the cost and complexity of any airstrike against Iran. Israel may have heard that the Russians are planning to begin transferring the missiles sometime in 2008.

Second, there is obviously the U.S. presidential election. George W. Bush will be out of office in early 2009, and it is possible that Barack Obama will be replacing him. The Israelis have made no secret of their discomfort with an Obama presidency. Obviously, Israel cannot attack Iran without U.S. cooperation. The Israelis’ timetable may be moved up because they are not certain that Obama will permit an attack later on. [Blog Author's note: Here is another article regarding that.]

There are also explanations for the extreme publicity surrounding the exercise. The first might be that the Israelis have absolutely no intention of trying to stage long-range attacks but are planning some other type of attack altogether. The possibilities range from commando raids to cruise missiles fired from Israeli submarines in the Arabian Sea — or something else entirely. The Mediterranean exercise might have been designed to divert attention.

Alternatively, the Israelis could be engaged in exhausting Iranian defenders. During the first Gulf War, U.S. aircraft rushed toward the Iraqi border night after night for weeks, pulling away and landing each time. The purpose was to get the Iraqis to see these feints as routine and slow down their reactions when U.S. aircraft finally attacked. The Israelis could be engaged in a version of this, tiring out the Iranians with a series of “emergencies” so they are less responsive in the event of a real strike.

Finally, the Israelis and Americans might not be intending an attack at all. Rather, they are — as the Iranians have said — engaged in psychological warfare for political reasons. The Iranians appear to be split now between those who think that Ahmadinejad has led Iran into an extremely dangerous situation and those who think Ahmadinejad has done a fine job. The prospect of an imminent and massive attack on Iran could give his opponents ammunition against him. This would explain the Iranian government response to the reports of a possible attack — which was that such an attack was just psychological warfare and could not happen. That clearly was directed more for internal consumption than it was for the Israelis or Americans.

We tend toward this latter theory. Frankly, the Bush administration has been talking about an attack on Iran for years. It is hard for us to see that the situation has changed materially over the past months. But if it has, then either Israel or the United States would have attacked — and not with front-page spreads in The New York Times before the attack was launched. In the end, we tend toward the view that this is psychological warfare for the simple reason that you don’t launch a surprise attack of the kind necessary to take out Iran’s nuclear program with a media blitz beforehand. It just doesn’t work that way.

A Ride In A D-25

On Wednesday I went with my family to see the Barnstormers Tour. Basically they have a lot of vintage biplanes from the 1920s that they have restored and now fly around the country touring and giving rides. I had the opportunity to purchase a ride on one. Here are a few pictures.

Here is the plane (that isn't my family). This is a New Standard D-25 Bi-Plane.



Getting ready to take off.



Climbing into the sky!



Jack Trice Stadium. The football stadium at Iowa State University.


Old dorms at Iowa State. My dad stayed in one of those (There used to be 4, but 2 have been demolished).



Looking at farm fields out over the wing.



More farm fields looking through the prop.



I thought this was a cool picture looking at the plane's shadow on the ground.



Another Bi-Plane giving rides, as seen from the air.



Coming into land. It was cool since they landed on the grass so as to limit wear on their tires.


Well, that was a fun ride.

Hopps
41

The End Is In Sight

The end is in sight, it seems to be so for many things.

The end of the semester is coming near, it is a welcome sight. School is enjoyable and interesting, but sometimes you just start to get worn a little thin and ready to finish up, and I am sure it will get even more so in the next several years. But, now is just the time to persevere to the end with God's help and continue to do everything as best as we can and let God do the rest, even when sometimes we don't get the results we would like.



But, now I must go to bed, so maybe I will update this later, maybe even more over the summer when I have nothing to do and nothing to write about. :-)


Hopps
41

His Grace is Enough

I know no one really reads this, but that is OK.

Recently I have really been thinking about how God's grace is enough for each and every day. His grace is meted out each day according to our needs, and it can be so tempting and hard to look ahead in life and start getting depressed and sad about what could be coming. There might be trials or suffering in your life right now, and possibly more to come in the future.

That is something that I have really been struggling with recently. I just pray to God everyday and thank Him that he will met out grace each day to handle whatever may come, and ask Him to help me remember that throughout the day as my mind tends to wander at times, and usually it wanders to the worst/extreme scenarios which can really get me down. But, I have no idea what the future holds and God does, so I just have to give it to Him and trust Him to provide and that everything happens according to His will and plan.

Hopps
41

Spring Break!

Quick post here.
It is almost Spring Break. My Legos team had our project demo today and it went well, so essentially school is over, except for one Calc III assignment, until after Spring Break. Yea!!!!

Also, it seems it might snow here in TX tonight a little, or at least rain some. Some snow would be crazy...and Awesome!

Later,

Hopps
41

Hey, Another Post

Well, I am finally putting up a second post!!

Life has been interesting I guess. Spring Break is coming
in a jiffy (two weeks) and I am quite excited. Unfortunately, between now and then a lot has to happen. Several tests and another Lego Project (;-P). Speaking of Lego projects, My team just finished one last week called the Scruncher. It is basically a robot who moves by expanding and contracting an accordion-like body. It is pretty sweet, I uploaded a video of it to my facebook, I'll have to see if I can't get a copy uploaded here to.

Well, this time of year is taxes time to. Man, those tax forms are such a pain to fill out! But, it sure is nice to still be at that income stage of getting a refund check for all that has been withheld(except for social security and Medicare!). :-)


I thought this last week has been interesting in terms of news though. On Sunday, Kosovo declared official independence from Serbia, which has really angered the Serbians. I don't know what they are going to do since many of the world powers
have recognized them, including the US, Britain, France, Australia, and others. But, Russia, and China still haven't, they say this sets a bad precedent for other separatist groups around the world. More or less, they basically jsut don't like to much freedom, and Kosovo used to be part of the U.S.S.R. anyways.

Also, on Wednesday/Thursday the U.S. shot down the dead spy satellite with an anti-missile missile. And it successfully worked! It was officially done so that
the poisonous Hydrazine fuel didn't fall on a populated area after it partially burned up in the atmosphere. It definitely had an added side-benefit of getting to test and anti-satellite missile system without to much of a world-wide uproar. I doubt if that was an original attention, but hey, they might as well take this opportunity. I for one, am glad to see that it worked since it is also part of the anti ballistic missile program I think. Over all though, it is pretty sweet the technology that has to go into being able to hit something moving thousands of mph with something else moving thousands of mph. It is truly fascinating.

The last bit of news I shall mention is in the technology realm. On Monday(I think) Toshiba officialy declared the end of HD-DVD. Also on that day was the cutoff for Verizon and AT&T to shutoff their analog cell service. Though very few people are affected by it, it is still interesting. It now also frees up more wireless frequencies for other use. kind of like when analog TV goes silent one year from two days before the analog cell service died.
Just some interesting tech news there.

Well, I must go now to finish printing some stuff in the lab here, and go on over to a Chili-Cook off which will hopefully be my subsistence for the evening. Have a good week.

Hopps
41

A New Day Has Begun

Well, it looks like I have a blog again.
I used to have one of these through Xanga awhile ago (it's probably still sitting around somewhere), but I stopped posting because of a lack of things to say, and frankly, laziness. I have decided to be cool again and start another blog here on blogspot. I hope to setup my own domain name and blog sometime in the kind of near future, but for now this will have to suffice. And hopefully I will be able to get a better customized theme for this blog in the near future.

Well, this blog will probably be a place for random musing, posts, and happenings in my life unless I think of some sort of dedicated or focused purpose for this.

Well, to start with, I am from the great state of Iowa (though I wasn't born there) and am currently going to school in Longview, TX at LeTourneau University. I am majoring in Engineering with a concentration in Electrical and with two minors: Mathematics and Computer Science. I am a proud member of the distinguished and mighty Dorm 41(I'm sure more posts/comments will come on that later). I am a first year student here, and have been enjoying it so far.

Well, I must say adios from my first blog post and go attempt some lame Physics homework.
Until next time, keep your head down and your powder dry.


Hopps
41