I’m getting very tired of hearing this trite phrase, as though it’s obvious, or indisputable, or useful. Or even true. Of course there is a military solution, or at least, the military is a key component of whatever solution we come up with. There’s certainly no non-military solution to nihilistic madmen bent on murder and mayhem. It’s not policy analysis–it’s simply a mindless mantra.

[Update a few minutes later]

Some letters to Harry Reid, from the people who “don’t have a solution.”

And some thoughts on defeatism from Victor Davis Hanson.

I’m getting very tired of hearing this trite phrase, as though it’s obvious, or indisputable, or useful. Or even true. Of course there is a military solution, or at least, the military is a key component of whatever solution we come up with. There’s certainly no non-military solution to nihilistic madmen bent on murder and mayhem. It’s not policy analysis–it’s simply a mindless mantra.

[Update a few minutes later]

Some letters to Harry Reid, from the people who “don’t have a solution.”

And some thoughts on defeatism from Victor Davis Hanson.

Michael Totten has a long photoessay. Remember to support him with the tip jar.

Iraq is a big place. It is more or less the size of California. If a car bomb were to go off in San Diego, it wouldn

Christopher Hitchens has a long but fascinating history of the beginning of the war of the US versus Islam. I’ve always thought that this would make a great movie, particularly since September 11th.

In the context of the almost-unheard-of declaration of the Duke lacrosse players’ innocence by the state attorney general, I would note that (former federal prosecutor) Andrew McCarthy has some thoughts on the distinctions between “not (yet) guilty” and “innocent,” and between 911 and Al Qaeda:

To be clear, I don’t understand Jonah to be saying anything other than that no connection has been proved, and assuming that’s what he’s saying, I agree. But there is a big difference between saying no connection has been proved and saying no connection is likely, or at least conceivable. The debate on this has become so perverted by those hell-bent on discrediting the American invasion of Iraq (aided and abetted by the administration’s infuriating failure to defend itself), that it seems people feel compelled to make an opening concession that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11 in order to be taken seriously in arguing that there is a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. But it would be more accurate to say that the evidence of connection between Iraq and al Qaeda is extensive, and there is enough troubling circumstantial evidence of Iraqi ties to central 9/11 players that Iraq’s participation in 9/11 cannot be discounted.

The left and their enablers in the media are now fully invested in the notion that Saddam provided no support for Al Qaeda, and doubling down. As always (the Duke case being a prime example) the appropriate narrative continues trump reality. It is two different things to say that Saddam coordinated with bin Laden, and that Saddam was involved with 911, and they continue to muddy the waters by conflating the two.

It seems that all members of the Iraqi Parliament, regardless of political party, are opposed to being blown up. Who knew?

Michael Yon has a graphic report from Iraq, embedded with the British troops:

As we rumbled through the dry, desert heat, the smells of Iraq

Mark Danzigerisn’t very impressed with “foreign policy experts.”

I think that we should take the same attitude toward the current regime in Iran that Reagan did to the Soviet Union–“They lose, we win.”

[Update a couple minutes later]

Oh, and here’s the latest insanity from the UN–Iran and Syria are leading the disarmament commission. And we’re supposed to take this institution seriously?

And here’s an interesting (albeit glum) report on what Iran is up to in Iraq:

it’s not just the Sunni Arab neighborhoods that need attention. Radical Shia outfits, like the Iran backed Mahdi Army, have also become more aggressive. The pro-Iranian groups have been losing strength, mainly because Arabs don’t trust the Iranians. Despite sharing religious beliefs (most Iranians, like most Iraqi Arabs, are Shia), Iraqi Arabs know that the Iranians despise them, and are still unhappy with the results of the 1980s war. In that conflict, Iraqi Shia Arabs fought for Saddam against Iranians, and fought the Iranians to a standstill, and a ceasefire. This was a humiliation for the Iranians, who had walked over the local opposition for thousands of years. But the Iranians have money, weapons and technical assistance for Iraqi Shia Arabs willing to cooperate. All the Iranians want is more chaos inside Iraq. This makes Iraq weak, and less of a threat to Iranian ambitions in the region. While some of the pro-Iranian Iraqi Arabs believe they have a chance of turning Iraq into a religious dictatorship (like Iran is), most know they are being played, and paid. You take the money. Jobs are scarce. But Iran is still the enemy. Always has been, always will be.

More evidence is piling up that Iran has, as many intel specialists have long suspected, been supporting some Sunni Arab terrorist groups, as well as Shia Arab ones. There are dozens of Sunni Arab terrorist groups, scattered all over the physical and political map. Apparently Iran helps out Sunni Arab terrorists who are less likely to slaughter Shia. There are parts of the country where the only targets are Kurds and Turkomen (both Sunni) or Christians (a rapidly disappearing, via migration minority). Iran has long had problems with Kurds, Turks and Christians, and does not mind killing them.

In the wake of the hangover over their latest national embarrassment on the world stage, John O’Sullivan asks if Britain is finally becoming un-Dianified.

In the wake of the hangover over their latest national embarrassment on the world stage, John O’Sullivan asks if Britain is finally becoming un-Dianified.