Here’s a link sent this way by a number-crunching political analyst that serves as a reminder to this blog that it is wiser to speculate only when it actually knows.
On the other hand, if I hadn’t posted this, I would never have been aware of the even wider dimensions of the debate, would I? No pain, no gain.
Incidentally, the linked article’s mention of political motives and the names of conservative bloggers reminds me of something that I’ve been thinking about for some time: how the media and the Internet create and sustain virtual communities with often radically different versions of reality by prescreening information. For example, I assume that Yomiuri and Asahi subscribers develop very different worldviews over time. Fox “News” and CNN? Town Hall and TPM Café? This situation is replicated at every level, everywhere.
ADD: Another one came in from said analyst. (Jan. 12, 13:30)
Showing posts with label War in Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War in Iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Good Example of the Need to Look behind the Numbers
National Journal debunks an estimate of Iraqi deaths since the U.S. went to war there in 2003. It highlights the dangers of failing to look behind the numbers. I found it through the Real Clear Politics website.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
My Big Mistake on OEF-MIO Operations from the Persian Gulf and Incomplete Thoughts Thereon
I made a big mistake. In fact, I made a doubled-size, italics, bold-letter mistake here. Foreign Minister Komura under Diet questioning reaffirmed that naval vessels did participate in bombing sorties in Afghanistan after receiving fuel from JMSDF vessels, and that the new anti-terrorism bill would be limited to Maritime Interception Operations (OEF-MIO).
So, my unconditional, absolute apology to TIME and its intrepid reporting team.
But it was not to abase myself publicly that I am writing this. You see, the existence of such bombing operations is very important because that is the only plausible explanation for the USS Kitty Hawk engaging in OEF from the Persian Gulf during the three days (25-27 February 2003) that, according to Defense Minister Ishiba, it took to consume the 800,000 gallons that it received from the JMSDF refueling ship Tokiwa. (In fact, I'm very much embarrassed at the fact that I didn't see this point in the first place.)
Still, leaving aside the conceptual difficulty of wrapping your mind around the idea that you can somehow distinguish between the drops of JMSDF fuel and drops of non-JMSDF fuel in the same fuel tank (surely the Kitty Hawk was not running on empty when it was serviced by Tokiwa) the discrepancy between average daily fuel consumption figures under normal conditions (U.S. documents by way of Peace Depot-113,000 gallons, Mr. Ishiba-200,000 gallons) remains unresolved. Likewise, the Kitty Hawk command history that the Peace Depot accusations has uploaded appears to show that its objectives on this mission were to engage in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Southern Watch (OSW).
Moreover, the Kitty Hawk deck log, again courtesy of Peace Depot, together with a map attached to the hard copy version of this Yomiuri article on Mr. Ushiba's testimony raises a further question. The deck log shows the Kitty Hawk in "AT/PASSAGE FROM Malacca TO Persian Gulf" on two dates, 17 February and 27 February, the latter date being the day it changed command. I presume that subsequent log entries show the Kitty Hawk "AT/PASSAGE FROM the Persian Gulf TO". The Yomiuri map of the Kitty Hawk's final leg of its passage (did Mr. Ishiba display it during his Diet testimony?) shows the Kitty Hawk on the move continuously, as it approaches from the Indian Ocean on 24 February, refuels from the Tokiwa near the mouth of the Persian Gulf on 25 February, enters the Gulf on 26 February, then comes to settle off the narrow Iraqi outlet at the tip of the Gulf on 1 March. I suspect that if the log between its departure from Okinawa and arrival in the Gulf were disclosed, it would show that the Kitty Hawk had been in continuous movement every day. Now it is conceivable that it ran sorties to Afghanistan in passing as it neared its ultimate destination. But plausible? I have no military expertise whatsoever, so I'll leave it at that.
There's also the matter of the large amount of JMSDF-to-U.S. vessel refueling, both in number of operations and per operation volume, in FY 2001 (April-March) and FY 2002, and the dramatic drop-off thereafter. The 800,000 gallons in the 25 February operation is merely a small fraction of the total. OSW effectively ended with the successful subjugation of the Iraqi regime at the end of the Japanese FY 2002. This coincidence of the end of refueling large U.S. military vessels and the end of a continuous aerial operation must be matched against the rise and fall of battleground needs in Afghanistan at the time to derive any conclusions, though; and, again, I am in way over my head. Unfortunately for Ichiro Ozawa, DPJ wonks knowledgeable in defense matters do not seem to be in his corner in the attack on the anti-terrorism operations.
Okay, now back to life.
(note) Major operations in Afghanistan involving air power seemed to have subsided, at least for while, after Operation Anaconda in March 2002. And the Anaconda was run by the U.S. ARMY and Air Force and did not involve the Navy or the Marines.
So, my unconditional, absolute apology to TIME and its intrepid reporting team.
But it was not to abase myself publicly that I am writing this. You see, the existence of such bombing operations is very important because that is the only plausible explanation for the USS Kitty Hawk engaging in OEF from the Persian Gulf during the three days (25-27 February 2003) that, according to Defense Minister Ishiba, it took to consume the 800,000 gallons that it received from the JMSDF refueling ship Tokiwa. (In fact, I'm very much embarrassed at the fact that I didn't see this point in the first place.)
Still, leaving aside the conceptual difficulty of wrapping your mind around the idea that you can somehow distinguish between the drops of JMSDF fuel and drops of non-JMSDF fuel in the same fuel tank (surely the Kitty Hawk was not running on empty when it was serviced by Tokiwa) the discrepancy between average daily fuel consumption figures under normal conditions (U.S. documents by way of Peace Depot-113,000 gallons, Mr. Ishiba-200,000 gallons) remains unresolved. Likewise, the Kitty Hawk command history that the Peace Depot accusations has uploaded appears to show that its objectives on this mission were to engage in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Southern Watch (OSW).
Moreover, the Kitty Hawk deck log, again courtesy of Peace Depot, together with a map attached to the hard copy version of this Yomiuri article on Mr. Ushiba's testimony raises a further question. The deck log shows the Kitty Hawk in "
There's also the matter of the large amount of JMSDF-to-U.S. vessel refueling, both in number of operations and per operation volume, in FY 2001 (April-March) and FY 2002, and the dramatic drop-off thereafter. The 800,000 gallons in the 25 February operation is merely a small fraction of the total. OSW effectively ended with the successful subjugation of the Iraqi regime at the end of the Japanese FY 2002. This coincidence of the end of refueling large U.S. military vessels and the end of a continuous aerial operation must be matched against the rise and fall of battleground needs in Afghanistan at the time to derive any conclusions, though; and, again, I am in way over my head. Unfortunately for Ichiro Ozawa, DPJ wonks knowledgeable in defense matters do not seem to be in his corner in the attack on the anti-terrorism operations.
Okay, now back to life.
(note) Major operations in Afghanistan involving air power seemed to have subsided, at least for while, after Operation Anaconda in March 2002. And the Anaconda was run by the U.S. ARMY and Air Force and did not involve the Navy or the Marines.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Has TIME (Where Else?) Correspondent Fallen for Deadpan Foreign Minister's Joke?
Japan May Stop Afghan Mission Aid
(TOKYO) — Japan would scale back its support of the U.S. in Afghanistan by ending naval assistance to vessels involved in ground missions there under a ruling party proposal that officials predicted Sunday would gain parliament's approval.
Since 2001, Japan's navy has been providing fuel for coalition warships under an anti-terrorism law that has been extended three times. Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda has strongly pushed for another extension to the mission, which expires on Nov. 1.
However, Fukuda has been forced to make concessions because of strong resistance from the opposition bloc, which took control of parliament's upper chamber following a massive electoral defeat for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in July.
A new draft law, submitted to the opposition Friday, would clearly limit the mission to naval refueling and supplying of water to vessels participating in the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom's maritime patrol missions in the Indian Ocean.
"Under the new law, there will be no refueling to ships providing support for ground operations (in Afghanistan)," Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura said Sunday on a public broadcaster NHK talk show.
- TIME, 07 October 2007
Dang, we've been hearing about the new anti-terrorism bill doing away with "[non-existent] search and rescue missions, as well as [non-existent] humanitarian relief efforts", but maritime operations? Oddly, none of the mainstream media seem to be carrying the story. Doesn't anybody care anymore? So I wrack my brain all day, until I realize:
Afghanistan is a land-locked nation, hundreds of miles away from any serious body of seawater! In fact, it's hundred's of miles away from any serious body of water.
"Opposition lawmakers have also alleged that oil supplied by Japanese ships was diverted to U.S. operations in Iraq, triggering public outrage. "The government must more clearly disclose its activities over the last six years," DPJ secretary-general Naoto Kan told a Fuji TV talk show on Sunday."
Mr. Kan's low-key sarcasm does not come cross very well in print (you have to see it to feel the victim's irritation and frustration), and something is lost in translation, so I'll give the correspondent a pass on that. But where's the public outrage? Don't you have the presence of mind to quote a tabloid? Asahi? Actually, the relative lack of public outrage is something that has mildly surprised me through all this.
"On Saturday, the country's largest business daily, the Nikkei, said Japan was preparing to withdraw its ships entirely from the region because the government did not expect to meet the deadline — a report quickly denied by the Defense Ministry.
Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba reiterated Sunday the government remained confident it can win backing of the opposition, which controls parliament's upper chamber. "We believe the new law will be approved in the upper house," Ishiba told a separate talk show aired by TV Asahi."
Maybe I was watching a different Shigeru Ishiba, because the Defense Minister that I saw kept saying something to the effect that this was not the time to talk of an override, and that much would hinge on how public opinion would evolve. But I'll take it on faith that Mr. Ishiba did say those things. Still, when most people believe that the DPJ has little room for moving away from its opposition to the extension of OEF-MIO, it's odd that these statements could be left out there without any context.
"But Fukuda, who took office last month, has sold himself as a compromiser and promised to reach a consensus with the opposition over the Afghan mission."
Nobody believes that he has made such a promise. He's made a best-effort commitment, nothing more.
And why does the article end on this note:
"Japan also hosts about 50,000 U.S. troops and is working with the U.S. on a joint missile defense system."
So true, but what does it have to do with the context? This article seems to begin with a missed joke, and end in a missing point.
Seriously, could the Foreign Minister have been referring to Iraq? It is also important to note that, under Ichiro Ozawa's reasoning, the JSMDF should be providing support for ground operations in Afghaniston, but not for what Mr. Komura purportedly limited the extension to.
(TOKYO) — Japan would scale back its support of the U.S. in Afghanistan by ending naval assistance to vessels involved in ground missions there under a ruling party proposal that officials predicted Sunday would gain parliament's approval.
Since 2001, Japan's navy has been providing fuel for coalition warships under an anti-terrorism law that has been extended three times. Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda has strongly pushed for another extension to the mission, which expires on Nov. 1.
However, Fukuda has been forced to make concessions because of strong resistance from the opposition bloc, which took control of parliament's upper chamber following a massive electoral defeat for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in July.
A new draft law, submitted to the opposition Friday, would clearly limit the mission to naval refueling and supplying of water to vessels participating in the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom's maritime patrol missions in the Indian Ocean.
"Under the new law, there will be no refueling to ships providing support for ground operations (in Afghanistan)," Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura said Sunday on a public broadcaster NHK talk show.
- TIME, 07 October 2007
Dang, we've been hearing about the new anti-terrorism bill doing away with "[non-existent] search and rescue missions, as well as [non-existent] humanitarian relief efforts", but maritime operations? Oddly, none of the mainstream media seem to be carrying the story. Doesn't anybody care anymore? So I wrack my brain all day, until I realize:
Afghanistan is a land-locked nation, hundreds of miles away from any serious body of seawater! In fact, it's hundred's of miles away from any serious body of water.
"Opposition lawmakers have also alleged that oil supplied by Japanese ships was diverted to U.S. operations in Iraq, triggering public outrage. "The government must more clearly disclose its activities over the last six years," DPJ secretary-general Naoto Kan told a Fuji TV talk show on Sunday."
Mr. Kan's low-key sarcasm does not come cross very well in print (you have to see it to feel the victim's irritation and frustration), and something is lost in translation, so I'll give the correspondent a pass on that. But where's the public outrage? Don't you have the presence of mind to quote a tabloid? Asahi? Actually, the relative lack of public outrage is something that has mildly surprised me through all this.
"On Saturday, the country's largest business daily, the Nikkei, said Japan was preparing to withdraw its ships entirely from the region because the government did not expect to meet the deadline — a report quickly denied by the Defense Ministry.
Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba reiterated Sunday the government remained confident it can win backing of the opposition, which controls parliament's upper chamber. "We believe the new law will be approved in the upper house," Ishiba told a separate talk show aired by TV Asahi."
Maybe I was watching a different Shigeru Ishiba, because the Defense Minister that I saw kept saying something to the effect that this was not the time to talk of an override, and that much would hinge on how public opinion would evolve. But I'll take it on faith that Mr. Ishiba did say those things. Still, when most people believe that the DPJ has little room for moving away from its opposition to the extension of OEF-MIO, it's odd that these statements could be left out there without any context.
"But Fukuda, who took office last month, has sold himself as a compromiser and promised to reach a consensus with the opposition over the Afghan mission."
Nobody believes that he has made such a promise. He's made a best-effort commitment, nothing more.
And why does the article end on this note:
"Japan also hosts about 50,000 U.S. troops and is working with the U.S. on a joint missile defense system."
So true, but what does it have to do with the context? This article seems to begin with a missed joke, and end in a missing point.
Seriously, could the Foreign Minister have been referring to Iraq? It is also important to note that, under Ichiro Ozawa's reasoning, the JSMDF should be providing support for ground operations in Afghaniston, but not for what Mr. Komura purportedly limited the extension to.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Refueling Issue Update
1. Newspaper reports say that the ruling coalition will introduce the bill only after the Budget Committee has completed its session on October 17. If true, this means that the earliest opportunity to submit the bill will be October 19, after the Cabinet meeting, giving the House of Representatives less than two weeks to vote on the bill. It is looking more likely that the supermajority revote will be held in January, before the Diet recesses and reconvenes in its annual regular session, most likely in the bottom half of January.
2. I had written here that the LDP considered both OEF-MIO and ISAF constitutionally acceptable. But I have recently seen Foreign Minister Komura state that direct participation in ISAF activities as of now would be unconstitutional, since the area could not yet be considered a non-combat area. Defense Minster Ishiba, the man who not only knows everything about military affairs but can also recite Article 9 by heart, gave a more elaborate explanation today on Sunday Project, pointing to two elements; 1) the existence of a conflict between states; and 2) a state of war that would make Japanese participation unconstitutional, and that 2) constitutionally barred Japan from taking part right now.
I don't think that this is a sound legal argument. War is war in a legal sense only because there are two or more states involved. Mr. Ishiba, in arguing for the continuation of the refueling activities, stated (and nobody is disputing) that there was no state as an enemy combatant in the case of OEF-MIO. But the same holds true for ISAF. In fact, Article 9 has even less to do with OEF-MIO (which did have Afghanistan as an enemy combatant to start with) than it does with ISAF (which has only non-state domestic insurgents and Al Qaeda as adversaries). But who asked me for my opinion? So this is a correction of the facts of the issue.
3) Mr. Ishiba also claimed that, although Pentagon is still in the process of conducting a thorough survey of the Kitty Hawk refueling controversy, he has so far been developing a conviction that the diesel fuel was not diverted to the Iraqi War. Everything seems to acquire more credibility - or at least plausibility - when Mr. Ishiba says it, so I'm going to suspend judgment until the case is laid out in public with due evidence, as he promised.
2. I had written here that the LDP considered both OEF-MIO and ISAF constitutionally acceptable. But I have recently seen Foreign Minister Komura state that direct participation in ISAF activities as of now would be unconstitutional, since the area could not yet be considered a non-combat area. Defense Minster Ishiba, the man who not only knows everything about military affairs but can also recite Article 9 by heart, gave a more elaborate explanation today on Sunday Project, pointing to two elements; 1) the existence of a conflict between states; and 2) a state of war that would make Japanese participation unconstitutional, and that 2) constitutionally barred Japan from taking part right now.
I don't think that this is a sound legal argument. War is war in a legal sense only because there are two or more states involved. Mr. Ishiba, in arguing for the continuation of the refueling activities, stated (and nobody is disputing) that there was no state as an enemy combatant in the case of OEF-MIO. But the same holds true for ISAF. In fact, Article 9 has even less to do with OEF-MIO (which did have Afghanistan as an enemy combatant to start with) than it does with ISAF (which has only non-state domestic insurgents and Al Qaeda as adversaries). But who asked me for my opinion? So this is a correction of the facts of the issue.
3) Mr. Ishiba also claimed that, although Pentagon is still in the process of conducting a thorough survey of the Kitty Hawk refueling controversy, he has so far been developing a conviction that the diesel fuel was not diverted to the Iraqi War. Everything seems to acquire more credibility - or at least plausibility - when Mr. Ishiba says it, so I'm going to suspend judgment until the case is laid out in public with due evidence, as he promised.
Friday, October 05, 2007
From Asahi, Peace Depot Update on JMSDF OEF-MIO? OIF? Refueling Activities
Today's Asahi brings us the news that Peace Depot, in the second installment of their investigations, which I previously chronicled here. Peace Depot has confirmed mainly through the log records of the Fleet Replenishment Oiler USNS Pecos, which had made the controversial 80,000 gallon retransfer to the USS Kitty Hawk, had subsequently refueled the Egis cruiser Coupens, then replenished locally and repeatedly refueled other US Marine and other vessels in the Persian Gulf. Peace Depot asserts that this deepens suspicions that the 800,000 gallon fuel oil in question, even if it had not been used to refuel the Kitty Hawk, was indeed used for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Asahi, perhaps weighted by its initial support of refueling activities back in the day, takes a We-Report, You-Decide approach to the latest revelations.
Asahi, perhaps weighted by its initial support of refueling activities back in the day, takes a We-Report, You-Decide approach to the latest revelations.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Will the DPJ Push Mr. Ozawa's Legal Argument and Normal Country Inclinations to Their Ultimate Conclusion?
There is no difference of opinion between the LDP and the DPJ over the basic legal prerequisites for Japanese involvement in military operations in and around Afghanistan. Both parties believe that such operations must be authorized by UNSG resolutions. However, the two parties differ when it comes to the specific application of this legal principle. The LDP is of the view that both a) the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and its activities and b) what the US named Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF; actually, OEF in Afghanistan in this post, as commonly accepted) and its participants have received such authorization, while the DPF asserts that only ISAF has done so. So, as far as the Constitution is concerned, the LDP position is that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces may engage in both activities, while the DPJ, with the victorious Ichiro Ozawa imposing his will on internal dissidents, allows to participation in ISAF only.
As a practical matter though, the LDP deems ISAF operations too dangerous and therefore has limited Japanese presence to OEF, where the JMSDF is undertaking the relatively safe, refueling operations on the open seas. On the other hand, the DPJ, prodded by Mr. Ozawa's openness to Japanese participation in ISAF - Mr. Ozawa has in the past shown a strong-pro US streak, and was the original proponent of "normal country" status for Japan, a concept that is more often associated with hawkish LDP politicians - is considering the matter, albeit with reluctance in many quarters. (Former party leader Seiji Maehara is one name that springs immediately to mind.) Thus, we have the intriguing situation where the LDP for practical reasons is limiting Japanese participation to modest proportions, while the DPJ is considering accepting the conclusions of its legal position (which has some force, if not quite a slam-dunk argument) and leapfrogging the LDP to the more dangerous phase of the operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (There are reportedly DPJ voices calling for limiting participation to medical assistance and other civilian activities. It remains to be seen, though, if other nations with soldiers in Afghanistan will be willing, or even able, to baby-sit another gaggle of Japanese civilians and possibly lightly armed JSDF personnel.)
How will these legal and practical considerations play with the Japanese public?
OEF and the activities of ISAF in theory address different phases, or aspects of the war on terror; i.e. the former the continuing war against terror, and the latter the post-warfare stage "to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment" UNSC Res.1386 (2001). But both activities are directed against Al Qaeda and its protectors the Taliban (if at least in the case of ISAF by no means exclusively so). Thus, for all practical purposes, they end up serving the same objective. In fact, until the whole controversy blew up over the extension of the anti-terrorism act, I confess that I was not aware of this distinction, and I hazard to guess that the Japanese public in general did not know much better either.
Remember that a plurality of the Japanese public has been coming around to an admittedly underwhelming support for the continuation of refueling activities. And it's the same theater against the same opponents; one operation is safe, the other is hazardous (and, by itself, might not even be welcomed).
I think that the practical consideration will prevail with the safety-first Japanese public. Unless the 800,000 gallon controversy spills over into operations beyond USS Kitty Hawk, or even the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I believe that the LDP position will prevail in the court of public opinion. A limited extension of two years for refueling operations only is definitely in the works, and, unless the potential budgetary repercussions of the ensuing delay of the next general Diet session become an overriding concern (I am now forced to add this caveat), will be passed within the year by a Lower House coalition supermajority revote. At least the Yomiuri editorial board seems to think so.
(Note) The Asahi editorial board is disappointed with Prime Minister Fukuda's answers in yesterday's Diet plenary, but officially remains agnostic. Mainichi is even more non-committal. The Sankei editorials no longer seem to be available after it replaced Mainichi as MSN's online news partner of choice. WTF?
Nikkei, Yomiuri and Asahi are collaborating on a joint website, joint distribution, and joint emergency production. Other newspapers are also welcome to join the party. At the same time, MSN has ditched Mainichi (or is it the other way around?) for Sankei. Whatever. Just give the world a deeper archive, so I won't have to keep copying the articles to my hard disk.
As a practical matter though, the LDP deems ISAF operations too dangerous and therefore has limited Japanese presence to OEF, where the JMSDF is undertaking the relatively safe, refueling operations on the open seas. On the other hand, the DPJ, prodded by Mr. Ozawa's openness to Japanese participation in ISAF - Mr. Ozawa has in the past shown a strong-pro US streak, and was the original proponent of "normal country" status for Japan, a concept that is more often associated with hawkish LDP politicians - is considering the matter, albeit with reluctance in many quarters. (Former party leader Seiji Maehara is one name that springs immediately to mind.) Thus, we have the intriguing situation where the LDP for practical reasons is limiting Japanese participation to modest proportions, while the DPJ is considering accepting the conclusions of its legal position (which has some force, if not quite a slam-dunk argument) and leapfrogging the LDP to the more dangerous phase of the operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (There are reportedly DPJ voices calling for limiting participation to medical assistance and other civilian activities. It remains to be seen, though, if other nations with soldiers in Afghanistan will be willing, or even able, to baby-sit another gaggle of Japanese civilians and possibly lightly armed JSDF personnel.)
How will these legal and practical considerations play with the Japanese public?
OEF and the activities of ISAF in theory address different phases, or aspects of the war on terror; i.e. the former the continuing war against terror, and the latter the post-warfare stage "to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment" UNSC Res.1386 (2001). But both activities are directed against Al Qaeda and its protectors the Taliban (if at least in the case of ISAF by no means exclusively so). Thus, for all practical purposes, they end up serving the same objective. In fact, until the whole controversy blew up over the extension of the anti-terrorism act, I confess that I was not aware of this distinction, and I hazard to guess that the Japanese public in general did not know much better either.
Remember that a plurality of the Japanese public has been coming around to an admittedly underwhelming support for the continuation of refueling activities. And it's the same theater against the same opponents; one operation is safe, the other is hazardous (and, by itself, might not even be welcomed).
I think that the practical consideration will prevail with the safety-first Japanese public. Unless the 800,000 gallon controversy spills over into operations beyond USS Kitty Hawk, or even the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I believe that the LDP position will prevail in the court of public opinion. A limited extension of two years for refueling operations only is definitely in the works, and, unless the potential budgetary repercussions of the ensuing delay of the next general Diet session become an overriding concern (I am now forced to add this caveat), will be passed within the year by a Lower House coalition supermajority revote. At least the Yomiuri editorial board seems to think so.
(Note) The Asahi editorial board is disappointed with Prime Minister Fukuda's answers in yesterday's Diet plenary, but officially remains agnostic. Mainichi is even more non-committal. The Sankei editorials no longer seem to be available after it replaced Mainichi as MSN's online news partner of choice. WTF?
Nikkei, Yomiuri and Asahi are collaborating on a joint website, joint distribution, and joint emergency production. Other newspapers are also welcome to join the party. At the same time, MSN has ditched Mainichi (or is it the other way around?) for Sankei. Whatever. Just give the world a deeper archive, so I won't have to keep copying the articles to my hard disk.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
I Need a Life, But in the Meantime, Interesting Facts and Figures on the Refueling Issue
Shisaku points to some interesting numbers on the refueling issue. (So that's where the October 1 Yomiuri got those non-attributed numbers for its chart.)
Panel 10 shows that the amount of fuel oil that the JMSDF vessels provided dropped precipitously from 119,000 KL in FY 2001 and 175,000 KL in FY 2002 to 53,000 KL in FY 2003, and has stayed more or less in that ballpark (albeit with large fluctuations) since then. This, despite the fact that the number of refueling occasions leapt from 58 in FY 2001 to 130 in FY 2002, jumped further to 188 in FY 2003, and has also stayed in that neighborhood. Moreover, the number of U.S. and non-U.S. vessels were: 98 and 2 in FY 2001, 96 and 4 in FY 2002, and 56 and 44 in FY 2003 (and in that vicinity since then), respectively.
In other words, in FY 2001 and FY 2002, the JMSDF vessels for the most part serviced large U.S. vessels and, from FY 2003 on, have been provisioning smaller vessels of mixed origin (roughly half-U.S. and declining and half non-, of which Pakistani ships so far form a large plurality).
The Iraqi War officially began on March 20, 2003 (did they declare war before they attacked?) near the end of the Japanese fiscal year 2002 (April 1, 2002-March 31, 2003). Clearly, there are many dots to be connected here, helped along with a little bit of Diet investigation authority.
So, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Yes, Ichiro Ozawa does owe Shisaku a nice lunch.
ADD:
The average amount of fuel provided per operation was highest in FY 2002, at 2,052 KL. The amount of fuel involved in the (mainly) U.S.S. Kitty Hawk discrepancy was 800,000 gallons, or, more accurately, 2,973 KL. The two KL figures are in the same ballpark.
I believe that the authorities will try to explain all this as merely topping up, as the ships arrived for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) surveillance and interception activities. But can they sort out the ships and operations dedicated to OEF and those to Operation Southern Watch (OSW) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and match the right ones to JMSDF refueling activities? Will the numbers add up?
Panel 10 shows that the amount of fuel oil that the JMSDF vessels provided dropped precipitously from 119,000 KL in FY 2001 and 175,000 KL in FY 2002 to 53,000 KL in FY 2003, and has stayed more or less in that ballpark (albeit with large fluctuations) since then. This, despite the fact that the number of refueling occasions leapt from 58 in FY 2001 to 130 in FY 2002, jumped further to 188 in FY 2003, and has also stayed in that neighborhood. Moreover, the number of U.S. and non-U.S. vessels were: 98 and 2 in FY 2001, 96 and 4 in FY 2002, and 56 and 44 in FY 2003 (and in that vicinity since then), respectively.
In other words, in FY 2001 and FY 2002, the JMSDF vessels for the most part serviced large U.S. vessels and, from FY 2003 on, have been provisioning smaller vessels of mixed origin (roughly half-U.S. and declining and half non-, of which Pakistani ships so far form a large plurality).
The Iraqi War officially began on March 20, 2003 (did they declare war before they attacked?) near the end of the Japanese fiscal year 2002 (April 1, 2002-March 31, 2003). Clearly, there are many dots to be connected here, helped along with a little bit of Diet investigation authority.
So, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Yes, Ichiro Ozawa does owe Shisaku a nice lunch.
ADD:
The average amount of fuel provided per operation was highest in FY 2002, at 2,052 KL. The amount of fuel involved in the (mainly) U.S.S. Kitty Hawk discrepancy was 800,000 gallons, or, more accurately, 2,973 KL. The two KL figures are in the same ballpark.
I believe that the authorities will try to explain all this as merely topping up, as the ships arrived for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) surveillance and interception activities. But can they sort out the ships and operations dedicated to OEF and those to Operation Southern Watch (OSW) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and match the right ones to JMSDF refueling activities? Will the numbers add up?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
A Twofer Post: The Two Policy Research Council Chairmen Go Head to Head; Chief Cabinet Secretary Grilled on Diesel Fuel for USS Kitty Hawk
On Sunday Project - surely the TV program most often cited (if often not credited) by the national print media - it's Sadakazu Tanigaki batting for the LDP doing what he does best and likes most, which is talking about policy issues, and the need to raise taxes. Up against him is the new DPJ policy chief Masayuki Naoshima, an ex-salaryman with extensive labor union background, someone that I'm not sure even Tobias Harris has seen. At the end, I am left wondering, what the hell was Mr. Naoshima doing there? He clearly had read the DPJ policy manifest, but did he know anything beyond it? Did he even believe it?
Soichiro Tawara, the Tasmanian Devil of political journalism, pounds Mr. Naoshima mercilessly on public pension reform. And with good reason too, because Mr. Naoshima is maddeningly vague on the details, basically copping a plea, that they are working on a bill. Mr. Tanigaki is at his enthusiastic and congenial best as he brings his command of details as well as his understanding of the broader fiscal implications to talk rings around Mr. Naoshima. Significantly, he emphasizes the underlying commonalities between the two positions, and suggests that there is plenty of room for a dialogue here. Mr. Tanigaki, like the Prime Minister, is by temperament and talent supremely suited to the soft-sell approach, and it shows.
On the contrast between the existing government policy to favor consolidating agricultural acreage and the DPJ proposal to extend income supplements to all farmers, Mr. Tanigaki scores at least a debating point when he argues against the wisdom of giving money to aging part-time farmers, an allegation that Mr. Naoshima lets pass without denial or counterargument. Moreover, Mr. Tanigaki handles the issue within the metropolitan center-boondocks dichotomy context. He believes that the persistence of public works that the prefectures conduct with their own revenues (in contrast to the public works subsidized by revenue transfers or direct subsidies) indicates that there are better ways to boost local economies. Is this a pitch for raising the consumption tax rate? Of course. Is he hinting at a possible escape valve for local pressures against the annual 3% cut in the national public works budget allocations? Maybe. But Mr. Naoshima does next to nothing to hit back, or even to defend himself.
Before, the DPJ could cite a recalcitrant bureaucracy for the lack of detail to its proposals. But control of the Upper House has greatly augmented the opposition's Diet investigation authority (Constitution, Article 62), and the bureaucracy has stepped up its cooperation with the DPJ, no doubt with the blessing of the LDP-New Komeito coalition. Ignorance is no longer an excuse for the DPJ.
Actually, only a very small fraction of this will show up in the Monday morning editions of the major dailies. At least not in the way that I have described them. And the DPJ will surely knock Mr. Tanigaki for stating that, in order to achieve primary balance in FY2011, the consumption tax rate will have to be raised higher than the 8% that Heizo Takenaka has suggested, and it may well find sympathetic editorial writers and even LDP discontents. If Mr. Naoshima clearly lost a round, he did it on a TV program that is only about as popular as a Sunday morning talk show on politics and the economy can be. Still, if this is any indication of how the policy debate is going to unfold, the DPJ will run the risk of being labeled not ready for primetime.
The LDP is clearly out to treat the relationship between consenting adults and to do its best to make a show of wooing the DPJ, and this actually comes naturally to Mr. Tanigaki. Ichiro Ozawa clearly wants to make war, not love. But the message does not seem to have reached his party policy chief.
Nobutaka Machimura, Chief Cabinet Secretary, also appeared on the program and was grilled at length about the controversy over the alleged diversion of JMSDF diesel fuel from counter-terrorism surveillance activities to the Iraqi War. Mr. Machimura basically kept repeating that such diversion, if true, was a serious matter and that they were talking to the U.S. side to find out the truth. Mr. Tawara pushed hard to make him say that an extension would be taken off the table if it turned out to be a lie, and Mr. Machimura showed himself at his firm, confident, and congenial, stonewalling best.
I've written quite often on and around this matter, but this is the most useful post because it points to great investigative work by Peace Depot. I think that the U.S. is going to explain the 800,000 gallons as a regrettable but honest logistics and communications mix-up in the accelerated and incredibly complicated lead-up to the Iraqi War and admonish Centcom or some other part of the U.S. forces for the error. No, it will not show up in the service records of individual military officers. The explanation and the accompanying show of contrition will be accepted by the Fukuda administration, Asahi will make some noises, and a new, refueling-only law will be passed by a supermajority override, sometime late this year.
Two caveats:
One, the Fukuda administration will have to come up with a plausible explanation for the 200,000-800,000 discrepancy. My sixth sense says that this is the easy one.
Two, it better be just the 800,000 gallons. If systemic diversion beyond that intial phase of the Iraq War is uncovered, then all bets are off on the extension, and Mr. Fukuda, Chief Cabinet Secretary at the time, will have some very serious atonement on his agenda.
Soichiro Tawara, the Tasmanian Devil of political journalism, pounds Mr. Naoshima mercilessly on public pension reform. And with good reason too, because Mr. Naoshima is maddeningly vague on the details, basically copping a plea, that they are working on a bill. Mr. Tanigaki is at his enthusiastic and congenial best as he brings his command of details as well as his understanding of the broader fiscal implications to talk rings around Mr. Naoshima. Significantly, he emphasizes the underlying commonalities between the two positions, and suggests that there is plenty of room for a dialogue here. Mr. Tanigaki, like the Prime Minister, is by temperament and talent supremely suited to the soft-sell approach, and it shows.
On the contrast between the existing government policy to favor consolidating agricultural acreage and the DPJ proposal to extend income supplements to all farmers, Mr. Tanigaki scores at least a debating point when he argues against the wisdom of giving money to aging part-time farmers, an allegation that Mr. Naoshima lets pass without denial or counterargument. Moreover, Mr. Tanigaki handles the issue within the metropolitan center-boondocks dichotomy context. He believes that the persistence of public works that the prefectures conduct with their own revenues (in contrast to the public works subsidized by revenue transfers or direct subsidies) indicates that there are better ways to boost local economies. Is this a pitch for raising the consumption tax rate? Of course. Is he hinting at a possible escape valve for local pressures against the annual 3% cut in the national public works budget allocations? Maybe. But Mr. Naoshima does next to nothing to hit back, or even to defend himself.
Before, the DPJ could cite a recalcitrant bureaucracy for the lack of detail to its proposals. But control of the Upper House has greatly augmented the opposition's Diet investigation authority (Constitution, Article 62), and the bureaucracy has stepped up its cooperation with the DPJ, no doubt with the blessing of the LDP-New Komeito coalition. Ignorance is no longer an excuse for the DPJ.
Actually, only a very small fraction of this will show up in the Monday morning editions of the major dailies. At least not in the way that I have described them. And the DPJ will surely knock Mr. Tanigaki for stating that, in order to achieve primary balance in FY2011, the consumption tax rate will have to be raised higher than the 8% that Heizo Takenaka has suggested, and it may well find sympathetic editorial writers and even LDP discontents. If Mr. Naoshima clearly lost a round, he did it on a TV program that is only about as popular as a Sunday morning talk show on politics and the economy can be. Still, if this is any indication of how the policy debate is going to unfold, the DPJ will run the risk of being labeled not ready for primetime.
The LDP is clearly out to treat the relationship between consenting adults and to do its best to make a show of wooing the DPJ, and this actually comes naturally to Mr. Tanigaki. Ichiro Ozawa clearly wants to make war, not love. But the message does not seem to have reached his party policy chief.
Nobutaka Machimura, Chief Cabinet Secretary, also appeared on the program and was grilled at length about the controversy over the alleged diversion of JMSDF diesel fuel from counter-terrorism surveillance activities to the Iraqi War. Mr. Machimura basically kept repeating that such diversion, if true, was a serious matter and that they were talking to the U.S. side to find out the truth. Mr. Tawara pushed hard to make him say that an extension would be taken off the table if it turned out to be a lie, and Mr. Machimura showed himself at his firm, confident, and congenial, stonewalling best.
I've written quite often on and around this matter, but this is the most useful post because it points to great investigative work by Peace Depot. I think that the U.S. is going to explain the 800,000 gallons as a regrettable but honest logistics and communications mix-up in the accelerated and incredibly complicated lead-up to the Iraqi War and admonish Centcom or some other part of the U.S. forces for the error. No, it will not show up in the service records of individual military officers. The explanation and the accompanying show of contrition will be accepted by the Fukuda administration, Asahi will make some noises, and a new, refueling-only law will be passed by a supermajority override, sometime late this year.
Two caveats:
One, the Fukuda administration will have to come up with a plausible explanation for the 200,000-800,000 discrepancy. My sixth sense says that this is the easy one.
Two, it better be just the 800,000 gallons. If systemic diversion beyond that intial phase of the Iraq War is uncovered, then all bets are off on the extension, and Mr. Fukuda, Chief Cabinet Secretary at the time, will have some very serious atonement on his agenda.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Peace Depot Uses USNS Logs and Other Evidence to Assert JMSDF Fuel Oil Was Used In the Iraq War
The Peace Resource Cooperative, or Peace Depot for short, mainly using the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to access ship logs and other U.S. Naval Service documents as well as a GAO report, has made a strong case that the 786 thousand gallons (not 200 thousand gallons, as previously claimed by the Japanese government) of diesel oil that the Fleet Replenishment Oiler USNS Pecos received in 2003 from the JMSDF oiler Tokiwa had been used to refuel the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, which went on to participate in Operation Southern Watch (OSW) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) (not Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), as previously claimed by the Japanese government). OSW maintained the Southern no-fly zone in the period between the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm; 1991) and the Iraq War (OIF; 2003- ). OIF was launched very soon after the Kitty Hawk arrived in the Persian Gulf.
Do you remember this and this? At the time, Nobuteru Ishihara as much as admitted that the US Naval ships in question were patrolling Iraqi waters, but claimed that they were watching for possible terrorist shipments and movements. After all, the Persian Gulf was part of the counter-terrorism act mandate. In the meantime, the offending US Centcom web pages had been taken down. However, Peace Depot kept digging until they came up with the evidence, put them together, and released its conclusions, together with copies of the relevant documents.
According to Asahi, the Director of the International Cooperation Division of the Ministry of Defense has admitted to an accounting error. He also backtracked a bit on the use of the diesel fuel, saying, "It is not that we are aware of all about everything". The article also depicts an unnamed LDP Defense zoku Diet member and anonymous MOD sources voicing suspicions of such use. Ironically, the article quotes then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda claiming that it would be impossible to use the fuel on iraq-related matters. Mainichi has more details on the official MOD explanation, but does not cover the reaction.
The DPJ will make good use of this information when the coalition government submits a new counter-terrorism bill as expected. I'm not quite ready to say that the extension is now in serious danger, but there is no doubt that this is a big problem for the (presumptive) Fukuda administration. The only excuse I can think of is, they must have been keeping watch on Al Qaida in Iraq…
Funny, where did I hear that story before?
It's too bad that the Peace Depot press release itself is available only in Japanese. But most of the documents are in English.
Do you remember this and this? At the time, Nobuteru Ishihara as much as admitted that the US Naval ships in question were patrolling Iraqi waters, but claimed that they were watching for possible terrorist shipments and movements. After all, the Persian Gulf was part of the counter-terrorism act mandate. In the meantime, the offending US Centcom web pages had been taken down. However, Peace Depot kept digging until they came up with the evidence, put them together, and released its conclusions, together with copies of the relevant documents.
According to Asahi, the Director of the International Cooperation Division of the Ministry of Defense has admitted to an accounting error. He also backtracked a bit on the use of the diesel fuel, saying, "It is not that we are aware of all about everything". The article also depicts an unnamed LDP Defense zoku Diet member and anonymous MOD sources voicing suspicions of such use. Ironically, the article quotes then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda claiming that it would be impossible to use the fuel on iraq-related matters. Mainichi has more details on the official MOD explanation, but does not cover the reaction.
The DPJ will make good use of this information when the coalition government submits a new counter-terrorism bill as expected. I'm not quite ready to say that the extension is now in serious danger, but there is no doubt that this is a big problem for the (presumptive) Fukuda administration. The only excuse I can think of is, they must have been keeping watch on Al Qaida in Iraq…
Funny, where did I hear that story before?
It's too bad that the Peace Depot press release itself is available only in Japanese. But most of the documents are in English.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Pentagon: Counter-terrorism Oil Not Being Used for Operation Iraqi Freedom
Remember this? The following Yomiuri report says that a Pentagon spokesman has stated that the Japanese fuel oil provided under the counter-terrorism act is not being used for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the offending web pages have been altered to avoid any misunderstanding.
Although Mr. Ishihara did not say anything that was obviously wrong, he said so much in his extensive explanations to justify the Iraqi connection that the DPJ should find plenty of material to draw on in criticizing the coalition government when the Diet convenes. The saving grace is that he is no longer Chief Cabinet Secretary.
Incidentally, I've reached the tentative conclusion that there are only two probable outcomes to the counter-terrorism act extension: a new comprehensive act that arrives in time to allow the JSDMF refueling ships to continue its operations uninterrupted; or a new law authorizing the Afghanistan operations that creates a maximum two-month gap that must be filled. I'll see if I can find the time to put it together later in the day.
海自の給油、イラク戦争転用を否定…米国防総省報道官
【ワシントン＝五十嵐文】米国防総省のスチュワート・アップトン報道担当官は７日、読売新聞の取材に対し、テロ対策特別措置法に基づき海上自衛隊 がインド洋で実施している給油がイラク戦争にも転用されているのではないかとの指摘が出ていることについて、「日本の補給艦から給油を受けている参加国 は、ＯＥＦ（アフガニスタンでの『不朽の自由作戦』）を支援するために燃料を使うとの合意の下に活動している」と述べ、イラクへの転用説を否定した。
中東海域などを管轄する米海軍中央司令部などのウエブサイトで、日本の給油活動が、アフガニスタンでのＯＥＦではなく、イラクでの「イラクの自由作戦」（ＯＩＦ）の一環として紹介されたことから、民主党などが臨時国会で追及する構えをみせている。
アップトン報道担当官は、サイトは２００５年７月掲載で、「誤解を招くおそれがあるためすでに変更された」と説明した。
（2007年9月8日11時22分 読売新聞）
Although Mr. Ishihara did not say anything that was obviously wrong, he said so much in his extensive explanations to justify the Iraqi connection that the DPJ should find plenty of material to draw on in criticizing the coalition government when the Diet convenes. The saving grace is that he is no longer Chief Cabinet Secretary.
Incidentally, I've reached the tentative conclusion that there are only two probable outcomes to the counter-terrorism act extension: a new comprehensive act that arrives in time to allow the JSDMF refueling ships to continue its operations uninterrupted; or a new law authorizing the Afghanistan operations that creates a maximum two-month gap that must be filled. I'll see if I can find the time to put it together later in the day.
海自の給油、イラク戦争転用を否定…米国防総省報道官
【ワシントン＝五十嵐文】米国防総省のスチュワート・アップトン報道担当官は７日、読売新聞の取材に対し、テロ対策特別措置法に基づき海上自衛隊 がインド洋で実施している給油がイラク戦争にも転用されているのではないかとの指摘が出ていることについて、「日本の補給艦から給油を受けている参加国 は、ＯＥＦ（アフガニスタンでの『不朽の自由作戦』）を支援するために燃料を使うとの合意の下に活動している」と述べ、イラクへの転用説を否定した。
中東海域などを管轄する米海軍中央司令部などのウエブサイトで、日本の給油活動が、アフガニスタンでのＯＥＦではなく、イラクでの「イラクの自由作戦」（ＯＩＦ）の一環として紹介されたことから、民主党などが臨時国会で追及する構えをみせている。
アップトン報道担当官は、サイトは２００５年７月掲載で、「誤解を招くおそれがあるためすでに変更された」と説明した。
（2007年9月8日11時22分 読売新聞）
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
I Learn Something About Our War on Terror in the Iraqi Theater
No, not that theater. I am watching Sunday Project, my favorite TV program (after the wacky wushu serials on basic cable). Soichiro Tawara, the hard-hitting septuagenarian host, is questioning Nobuteru Ishihara, ex-Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary and new Chairman of the LDP Policy Research Council, on the prospects for the extension of the counter-terrorism act.
Even as Mr. Ishihara is explaining the distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan and how Japanese withdrawal would mean a disaster for the valiant Pakistani navy, Mr. Tawara, as always - this is the rudest man on the planet we are talking about - interrupts him and whips out a web page printout, two pages be exact, courtesy, he says, of Yukio Edano, DPJ hyper-policy wonk. They have been taken from the US Centcom Web site, and shows that most of the fuel oil that the JSDN provides for refueling as logistic support for counter-terrorism activities actually goes to operations in Iraq. Mr. Tawara's point is that we'd been told that there's one law on the books for Iraq and another for the war on terror in Afghanistan but it turns out we've been mostly helping out in Iraq either way.
Mr. Ishihara does not skip a beat – he claims he wasn't aware of this information, and he does look sincere – and goes on to explain how the Indian Ocean [i.e. presumed theater of operations] stretches to the African coast and the Persian Gulf so the whole area must be patrolled of course and we wouldn't want the terrorists moving in and out of Iraq do we? Mr. Tawara keeps pressing his point, Mr. Ishihara keeps repeating that there is no way to draw the line between naval operations around Afghanistan - a landlocked state, come to think of it – and Iraq, and I am thinking, gee, call me stupid, but I wasn't aware of that… The two kept repeating themselves until Mr. Tawara gruffly broke it off.
Come to think of it, it makes sense. The counter-terrorism act says nothing about the theater of operations, and the Iraq act only covers "activities to support humanitarian reconstruction and activities to support secure safety". The jurisdictional distinction is functional, not geographical. The problem is, we've had Afghanistan/Iraq, Afghanistan/Iraq drummed into our heads over and over again and how everyone but Ichiro Ozawa and his cousin is supposed to be on board for Afghanistan; so the notion that the refueled ships actual operate mainly in the Iraqi war theater? That comes as a sort of double-take for me, not to mention for the obstinate Mr. Tawara. How will it play with the rest of the public? The fact that Mr. Edano passed it on is a sure sign that the DPJ is going to exploit this mostly-Iraq angle once the Diet convenes on Sept.10.
That's how I remember the exchange, though I probably misremember much of the details. (Like, was that Edano, or really Maehara?) (MTC, did you videotape it?)
Now I have a request. Do any of you know how to find the web pages? It appeared to have "Operation Iraqi Freedom" emblazoned at the top, a big picture of a couple of naval vessels, and tables to show how much fuel oil have gone where. I can't find it here.
Even as Mr. Ishihara is explaining the distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan and how Japanese withdrawal would mean a disaster for the valiant Pakistani navy, Mr. Tawara, as always - this is the rudest man on the planet we are talking about - interrupts him and whips out a web page printout, two pages be exact, courtesy, he says, of Yukio Edano, DPJ hyper-policy wonk. They have been taken from the US Centcom Web site, and shows that most of the fuel oil that the JSDN provides for refueling as logistic support for counter-terrorism activities actually goes to operations in Iraq. Mr. Tawara's point is that we'd been told that there's one law on the books for Iraq and another for the war on terror in Afghanistan but it turns out we've been mostly helping out in Iraq either way.
Mr. Ishihara does not skip a beat – he claims he wasn't aware of this information, and he does look sincere – and goes on to explain how the Indian Ocean [i.e. presumed theater of operations] stretches to the African coast and the Persian Gulf so the whole area must be patrolled of course and we wouldn't want the terrorists moving in and out of Iraq do we? Mr. Tawara keeps pressing his point, Mr. Ishihara keeps repeating that there is no way to draw the line between naval operations around Afghanistan - a landlocked state, come to think of it – and Iraq, and I am thinking, gee, call me stupid, but I wasn't aware of that… The two kept repeating themselves until Mr. Tawara gruffly broke it off.
Come to think of it, it makes sense. The counter-terrorism act says nothing about the theater of operations, and the Iraq act only covers "activities to support humanitarian reconstruction and activities to support secure safety". The jurisdictional distinction is functional, not geographical. The problem is, we've had Afghanistan/Iraq, Afghanistan/Iraq drummed into our heads over and over again and how everyone but Ichiro Ozawa and his cousin is supposed to be on board for Afghanistan; so the notion that the refueled ships actual operate mainly in the Iraqi war theater? That comes as a sort of double-take for me, not to mention for the obstinate Mr. Tawara. How will it play with the rest of the public? The fact that Mr. Edano passed it on is a sure sign that the DPJ is going to exploit this mostly-Iraq angle once the Diet convenes on Sept.10.
That's how I remember the exchange, though I probably misremember much of the details. (Like, was that Edano, or really Maehara?) (MTC, did you videotape it?)
Now I have a request. Do any of you know how to find the web pages? It appeared to have "Operation Iraqi Freedom" emblazoned at the top, a big picture of a couple of naval vessels, and tables to show how much fuel oil have gone where. I can't find it here.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
O'Hanlon-Pollack Op-Ed/Report on Iraq
I'm sure most Americans who are reading this are aware of the O'Hanlon-Pollack NYT op-ed that claimed, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms" and concluded that "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008 (my emphasis)." The op-ed has been hailed by supporters of the surge as a remarkable in-your-face rebuke to defeatists from two long-standing critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, while detractors assail the essay as propaganda by two bedrock supporters of the war in Iraq as output from a guided tour by Bush administration propaganda machine.
Less noticed is the two Brooking analysts' full report (still maddeningly anecdotal and too journalistic for my tastes), which presents a much bleaker picture. More or less the same claim, same conclusion; but, where the op-ed gives one paragraph to the (political) graveness of the situation and half a paragraph to the depiction of the Iraqi National Police as "a disaster", half the full report is devoted to the political difficulties, as well as very serious caveats to the military success. The latter also says, "The current Iraqi [proportional] electoral system is a disaster" and calls for a new national election under "a geographical representational system like [the United States or Great Britain". If you think that that is going to happen before "March-April 2008", after which the full report says that the US will have to draw down to pre-surge levels - the insurgents (code for Sunni) and the militia (Shiia) will appreciate that piece of information - then the future looks bright.
The title to the op-ed, A War We just Might Win, takes on an undoubtedly unintented irony for the more prosaically titled Iraq Trip Report at Brookings.
Note: By "anecdotal" and "journalistic", I mean the frequent use of an illustrative example or qualitative words or phrases like "many" and "far more" instead of numbers and fractions, or even relative terms like "majority" or "most".
Less noticed is the two Brooking analysts' full report (still maddeningly anecdotal and too journalistic for my tastes), which presents a much bleaker picture. More or less the same claim, same conclusion; but, where the op-ed gives one paragraph to the (political) graveness of the situation and half a paragraph to the depiction of the Iraqi National Police as "a disaster", half the full report is devoted to the political difficulties, as well as very serious caveats to the military success. The latter also says, "The current Iraqi [proportional] electoral system is a disaster" and calls for a new national election under "a geographical representational system like [the United States or Great Britain". If you think that that is going to happen before "March-April 2008", after which the full report says that the US will have to draw down to pre-surge levels - the insurgents (code for Sunni) and the militia (Shiia) will appreciate that piece of information - then the future looks bright.
The title to the op-ed, A War We just Might Win, takes on an undoubtedly unintented irony for the more prosaically titled Iraq Trip Report at Brookings.
Note: By "anecdotal" and "journalistic", I mean the frequent use of an illustrative example or qualitative words or phrases like "many" and "far more" instead of numbers and fractions, or even relative terms like "majority" or "most".
Friday, August 24, 2007
I'm Not the Only One Who Doesn't Like President Bush's Iraq Analogy
I'm not the only one who doesn't like President Bush's Iraq analogy. Of course Americans opposed to his policy on Iraq are overwhelmingly reacting to his comparison with Vietnam. (His supporters are, needless to say, counterattacking.) According to the Yomiuri, the Vietnamese don't like it either, if the headline, "Vietnam Foreign Ministry Expresses Displeasure at President Bush's Remarks" is to be believed. However, Reuters thinks that, "Reacting to Bush Speech, Vietnam Focuses on Present". Why the difference? Yomiuri writes
The Vietnamese MOF spokesman expressed displeasure,…… saying, "To the people, [the war] was a fight for justice."
The article closes with another quote from the spokesman:
"The people stood up for independence and freedom, and national unification. The scars of the war still remain."
According to Reuters, the spokesman's comments went like this:
"Vietnamese fought for "a righteous cause" during the U.S. war but preferred to focus on the present, a government spokesman said on Thursday in reaction to President George W. Bush's speech comparing the Iraq and Vietnam conflicts.
"The war leaves consequences that are still visible today, and so are our memories," Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Le Dung said at one of his twice-monthly media briefings.
"But as a nation with a tradition that treasures peace, we are determined to not forget the past but value the present and look forward to a better future with other countries including the United States."
As for my own crusade against the Japan-Iraq analogy, Asahi chimes in with "US President Equates Pre-War Japan with Al-Qaeda, Criticisms toward His View of History". The article gives a somewhat misleading impression that his take on Japan was a big part of the focus of the criticism. (Actually, it seems to have gone almost unnoticed in the US media in the shadows of the Vietnam analogy.) The article is harshly critical of President Bush, closing with:
Mr. Bush depends on his war against terror, but exposed his lack of understanding for the history and culture of other countries including Japan. [The speech] omits inconvenient facts and appeals to the domestic constituency with America's "idealism" and "good intentions".
Speaking of inconvenient facts, Asahi was once one of the foremost proponents of an aggressive foreign policy, going all the way back to its role in touching off the Hibiya Riots.
Yomiuri, reporting from Washington, is non-committal on that point in "US President Appeals for Continuation of Engagement in Iraq, Comparing it with 'Japan's Democratization'", the correspondent confining herself to the following:
[President Bush] introduced a distinct view of history to the effect that freedom expanded into and established itself in Japan, Korea and elsewhere in Asia through US involvement.
Note the use of the word "独自" (original; 《fml》 peculiar; of one's own; unique according to one on-line dictionary; I have translated it as "distinct") in the original text. I think that there is an understated sense of irony there, but maybe that's just me. More significantly, the first Yomiuri article out of its Bangkok bureau seems to have gone to some trouble to produce an article critical of President Bush's Iraq policy while the latter from its Washington correspondent is distinctly neutral otherwise.
The Vietnamese MOF spokesman expressed displeasure,…… saying, "To the people, [the war] was a fight for justice."
The article closes with another quote from the spokesman:
"The people stood up for independence and freedom, and national unification. The scars of the war still remain."
According to Reuters, the spokesman's comments went like this:
"Vietnamese fought for "a righteous cause" during the U.S. war but preferred to focus on the present, a government spokesman said on Thursday in reaction to President George W. Bush's speech comparing the Iraq and Vietnam conflicts.
"The war leaves consequences that are still visible today, and so are our memories," Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Le Dung said at one of his twice-monthly media briefings.
"But as a nation with a tradition that treasures peace, we are determined to not forget the past but value the present and look forward to a better future with other countries including the United States."
As for my own crusade against the Japan-Iraq analogy, Asahi chimes in with "US President Equates Pre-War Japan with Al-Qaeda, Criticisms toward His View of History". The article gives a somewhat misleading impression that his take on Japan was a big part of the focus of the criticism. (Actually, it seems to have gone almost unnoticed in the US media in the shadows of the Vietnam analogy.) The article is harshly critical of President Bush, closing with:
Mr. Bush depends on his war against terror, but exposed his lack of understanding for the history and culture of other countries including Japan. [The speech] omits inconvenient facts and appeals to the domestic constituency with America's "idealism" and "good intentions".
Speaking of inconvenient facts, Asahi was once one of the foremost proponents of an aggressive foreign policy, going all the way back to its role in touching off the Hibiya Riots.
Yomiuri, reporting from Washington, is non-committal on that point in "US President Appeals for Continuation of Engagement in Iraq, Comparing it with 'Japan's Democratization'", the correspondent confining herself to the following:
[President Bush] introduced a distinct view of history to the effect that freedom expanded into and established itself in Japan, Korea and elsewhere in Asia through US involvement.
Note the use of the word "独自" (original; 《fml》 peculiar; of one's own; unique according to one on-line dictionary; I have translated it as "distinct") in the original text. I think that there is an understated sense of irony there, but maybe that's just me. More significantly, the first Yomiuri article out of its Bangkok bureau seems to have gone to some trouble to produce an article critical of President Bush's Iraq policy while the latter from its Washington correspondent is distinctly neutral otherwise.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
President Bush Hopes Iraq Will Go the Way of Japan. If This Story Sounds Familiar, Yes, You Have Heard It Before.
I want to open today's speech with a story that begins on a sunny morning, when thousands of Americans were murdered in a surprise attack -- and our nation was propelled into a conflict that would take us to every corner of the globe.
The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region. And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence and give up the fight.
If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing. The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not 9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia.
Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom.
---The opening paragraphs of President Bush's August 22 speech before the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars---
Third, President Roosevelt believed that free nations are peaceful nations that would not threaten America. He knew that it was the lack of democracy in Japan that allowed an un-elected group of militarists to take control of the state, threaten our neighbors, attack America, and plunge an entire region into war. And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to the region was by bringing freedom to Japan.
……
With every step toward freedom, the Japanese economy flourished. With every step toward freedom, the Japanese became a model for others in the region. With every step toward freedom, the Japanese became a valued member of the world community, a force for peace and stability in the region, and a trusted and reliable ally of the United States of America.
……
Today we must not forget the lessons of the past, and the lesson of this experience is clear: The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the spirit of liberty. In the 20th century, the spirit of liberty worked to spread freedom from Japan and Germany to Eastern Europe and Latin America and Southeast Asia and Africa. And the spirit of liberty is at work today. Across the broader Middle East, we can see freedom's power to transform nations and deliver hope to people who have not known it. In Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, people have gone to the polls and chosen their leaders in free elections. Their example is inspiring millions across that region to claim their liberty, as well -- and they will have it.
As freedom advances across a troubled part of the world, it is once again opposed by fanatical adherence of a murderous ideology. And once again, the stakes are high. Now, as then, our enemies have made their fight a test of American credibility and resolve. Now, as then, they are trying to intimidate free people and break our will. And now, as then, they will fail.
---from President Bush's 2005 August 30 speech commemorating V-Day at Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego---
There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.
---from President Bush's 2001 February 23 address before a joint session of Congress---
So maybe it's worth repeating that Japan had been a democracy well before General McArthur stepped foot on Japanese soil. And that it was under that democracy that the Japanese media---with the support of much of the Japanese public---consistently bashed the wishy-washy appeasers among the civilian leadership and all but encouraged the military to take the reins of government.
The democratic process works when it works; when it doesn't, it doesn't.
Hitler blahblahblah, Milosevic blahblahblah, Hamas blahblahblah……
The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region. And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence and give up the fight.
If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing. The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not 9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia.
Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom.
---The opening paragraphs of President Bush's August 22 speech before the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars---
Third, President Roosevelt believed that free nations are peaceful nations that would not threaten America. He knew that it was the lack of democracy in Japan that allowed an un-elected group of militarists to take control of the state, threaten our neighbors, attack America, and plunge an entire region into war. And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to the region was by bringing freedom to Japan.
……
With every step toward freedom, the Japanese economy flourished. With every step toward freedom, the Japanese became a model for others in the region. With every step toward freedom, the Japanese became a valued member of the world community, a force for peace and stability in the region, and a trusted and reliable ally of the United States of America.
……
Today we must not forget the lessons of the past, and the lesson of this experience is clear: The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the spirit of liberty. In the 20th century, the spirit of liberty worked to spread freedom from Japan and Germany to Eastern Europe and Latin America and Southeast Asia and Africa. And the spirit of liberty is at work today. Across the broader Middle East, we can see freedom's power to transform nations and deliver hope to people who have not known it. In Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, people have gone to the polls and chosen their leaders in free elections. Their example is inspiring millions across that region to claim their liberty, as well -- and they will have it.
As freedom advances across a troubled part of the world, it is once again opposed by fanatical adherence of a murderous ideology. And once again, the stakes are high. Now, as then, our enemies have made their fight a test of American credibility and resolve. Now, as then, they are trying to intimidate free people and break our will. And now, as then, they will fail.
---from President Bush's 2005 August 30 speech commemorating V-Day at Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego---
There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.
---from President Bush's 2001 February 23 address before a joint session of Congress---
So maybe it's worth repeating that Japan had been a democracy well before General McArthur stepped foot on Japanese soil. And that it was under that democracy that the Japanese media---with the support of much of the Japanese public---consistently bashed the wishy-washy appeasers among the civilian leadership and all but encouraged the military to take the reins of government.
The democratic process works when it works; when it doesn't, it doesn't.
Hitler blahblahblah, Milosevic blahblahblah, Hamas blahblahblah……
The Smoking Iranian Gun in Iraq? I Doubt It, But Let's Put It in Play
The English version of the Mainichi has outsourced its entire overseas coverage to AP. That's a shame, because the Japanese version carries this spectacular August 23 scoop on help from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to Iraqi militia, a US allegation the Iranian government has been strenuously denying. If the report can be verified, it would be an important step in setting the stage for US strikes into Iranian territory, something that has become increasingly likely as the Bush administration sees Iranian meddling as a serious obstacle to its war in Iraq.
Is something like this really going on? If I had to guess, I would say yes. As for the story itself though, I think that somebody has pulled a fast one on Mainichi. There's no reason for real Mahdi members to talk to the "Mainichi assistant in Baghdad" about Iranian involvement in their activities; in fact, they would be incredibly stupid to do so. So, I'll believe the report when I hear that the men who talked to the assistant as well as the assistant himself have been killed off. Swiftly. Gruesomely. Still, it's such a stunning story that I'm going off the reservation today and translating it here for your viewing pleasure:
Iraq: Shiite Militia Admit to Military Training in Iran
(Cairo, Muneo Takahashi)
By August 22, members of the Mahdi Army, a Islamic Shiite militia in Iraq, disclosed in an investigation by a Mainichi assistant in Baghdad that they had been receiving military training from the Revolutionary Guard in their neighbor country Iran. The US Forces in Iraq repeatedly criticized Iran for supporting Shiite militia, but Iran had denied it. The Iranian claim will be placed in serious doubt by the testimony from within the Mahdi Army.
The Mahdi Army is the militia organization of the anti-American militant "Sadrists". A Mahdi Army member (36) calling himself "Saad" in Sadr City in South Baghdad, the Mahdi Army's power base, testified that "the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is giving training in sniping and dealing with explosives" in underground shelters in Sadr City remaining from the Saddam Hussein days. He revealed that he has transported arms from Iran to Iraq multiple times since July 2004, and said, "I received military training from the Revolutionary Guard from January through March this year in Iran."
The leading member (36) in the Abu Karal (Caral?) district revealed that "[we] have destroyed four US military Humvees (Highly mobile multipurpose vehicles) in the past two weeks" in attacks that he had led. He revealed that they had modified powerfully destructive Iranian landmines and were using them as roadside bombs.
Another member also said that "[we] obtained Katushya rockets to target US military bases" and that "[he] had transported bonuses from Iran for his brothers (Mahdi Army members)."
According to "Saad", they are receiving these arms and funds through the Iranian external information agency called "Ittilat" in Farsi.
From the testimonies, the Iranian intent to bring disorder to the military forces in Iraq of the US, with which it is in conflict, by using the Mahdi Army can be discerned. It is likely that the arms that have been passed on to the Mahdi Army are also being used to attack the "Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council", fellow Shiite and rival to the Sadrists in the Iraqi south and elsewhere, and is resulting in amplifying disorder within Iraq.
Major General Lynch of the US forces in Iraq criticized Iran on the 19th, saying that "about fifty members of the Revolutionary Guard are training Shiite militia." Hosseini, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, denied the charge, saying, "it is absolutely groundless."
Mainichi Shinbun 2007.08.23 03:00 AM
Is something like this really going on? If I had to guess, I would say yes. As for the story itself though, I think that somebody has pulled a fast one on Mainichi. There's no reason for real Mahdi members to talk to the "Mainichi assistant in Baghdad" about Iranian involvement in their activities; in fact, they would be incredibly stupid to do so. So, I'll believe the report when I hear that the men who talked to the assistant as well as the assistant himself have been killed off. Swiftly. Gruesomely. Still, it's such a stunning story that I'm going off the reservation today and translating it here for your viewing pleasure:
Iraq: Shiite Militia Admit to Military Training in Iran
(Cairo, Muneo Takahashi)
By August 22, members of the Mahdi Army, a Islamic Shiite militia in Iraq, disclosed in an investigation by a Mainichi assistant in Baghdad that they had been receiving military training from the Revolutionary Guard in their neighbor country Iran. The US Forces in Iraq repeatedly criticized Iran for supporting Shiite militia, but Iran had denied it. The Iranian claim will be placed in serious doubt by the testimony from within the Mahdi Army.
The Mahdi Army is the militia organization of the anti-American militant "Sadrists". A Mahdi Army member (36) calling himself "Saad" in Sadr City in South Baghdad, the Mahdi Army's power base, testified that "the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is giving training in sniping and dealing with explosives" in underground shelters in Sadr City remaining from the Saddam Hussein days. He revealed that he has transported arms from Iran to Iraq multiple times since July 2004, and said, "I received military training from the Revolutionary Guard from January through March this year in Iran."
The leading member (36) in the Abu Karal (Caral?) district revealed that "[we] have destroyed four US military Humvees (Highly mobile multipurpose vehicles) in the past two weeks" in attacks that he had led. He revealed that they had modified powerfully destructive Iranian landmines and were using them as roadside bombs.
Another member also said that "[we] obtained Katushya rockets to target US military bases" and that "[he] had transported bonuses from Iran for his brothers (Mahdi Army members)."
According to "Saad", they are receiving these arms and funds through the Iranian external information agency called "Ittilat" in Farsi.
From the testimonies, the Iranian intent to bring disorder to the military forces in Iraq of the US, with which it is in conflict, by using the Mahdi Army can be discerned. It is likely that the arms that have been passed on to the Mahdi Army are also being used to attack the "Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council", fellow Shiite and rival to the Sadrists in the Iraqi south and elsewhere, and is resulting in amplifying disorder within Iraq.
Major General Lynch of the US forces in Iraq criticized Iran on the 19th, saying that "about fifty members of the Revolutionary Guard are training Shiite militia." Hosseini, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, denied the charge, saying, "it is absolutely groundless."
Mainichi Shinbun 2007.08.23 03:00 AM
Monday, July 09, 2007
Enablers in The White House
People like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her successor as national security advisor Stephen J. Handley are often give a pass, with the understanding that these are well-meaning people doing the best they can under difficult circumstances, that is, a vice president who has made up his mind and will never change it and a president who, once he makes up his mind will never change it. As an ex-bureaucrat, I can sympathize (as indeed most people who have spent time in an organization will) with these people. You have done something to make the world better if you have done the doable.
But this report, if true, shows Mr. Hadley in what seems nothing more than a futile exercise, the mindless execution of the president's will in the face of certain failure, a Bizzarro World mirror image of the proverbial bearer of bad messages. He must be thinking, it's either me, or someone who'll make things even worse. That, or he totally lacks a sense of reality and insight into the human mind.
If nothing else, this bureaucrat mentality (and there's nothing wrong with that; we have and need more bureaucrats than politicians; for better or worse, bureaucrats make the world run) should lay to rest any thought that Ms. Rice will ever seek political office through an election, let alone the presidency.
But this report, if true, shows Mr. Hadley in what seems nothing more than a futile exercise, the mindless execution of the president's will in the face of certain failure, a Bizzarro World mirror image of the proverbial bearer of bad messages. He must be thinking, it's either me, or someone who'll make things even worse. That, or he totally lacks a sense of reality and insight into the human mind.
If nothing else, this bureaucrat mentality (and there's nothing wrong with that; we have and need more bureaucrats than politicians; for better or worse, bureaucrats make the world run) should lay to rest any thought that Ms. Rice will ever seek political office through an election, let alone the presidency.
Monday, April 30, 2007
America: If Any of This SectarianTrashing of the Iraqi Security Forces Are True, Then Mr.Bush Is Wasting Other People's Time, among Other Things
Would you care to read this WaPo article? If you don't, the headline and the subtitle:
"Maliki's Office Is Seen Behind Purge in Forces
Some Commanders Had Pursued Militias"
say it all. They are, if anything, an understatement. The allegations, some of it coming from US officers quoted by name and rank, make the US Attorney General's office look saintly by comparison. If true, the "surge", whatever it manages to do tactically, is doomed. And it won't matter if David Petraeus is as good a soldier as everyone claims.
"Maliki's Office Is Seen Behind Purge in Forces
Some Commanders Had Pursued Militias"
say it all. They are, if anything, an understatement. The allegations, some of it coming from US officers quoted by name and rank, make the US Attorney General's office look saintly by comparison. If true, the "surge", whatever it manages to do tactically, is doomed. And it won't matter if David Petraeus is as good a soldier as everyone claims.
Japan: Iraq Continues to Take the Wind Out of Constitutional Amendment
Yes, the story is a little old, but it looks like I'll never get around to writing that long piece on…
The Yomiuri has been conducting polls on constitutional amendment for a long time. Support for amendment increased steadily until it crested in 2004, but has fallen every year since.
The article says that "as constitutional amendment has taken on an air of reality, it appears that some people among amendment supporters have emerged who want to watch carefully movements concerning amendment (ed. My translation).*" I know, the explanation looks fishy in Japanese as well. The Yomiuri has been staunchly pro-amendment, so the much longer hard copy article didn't shed much light on the reason either. But I think I know why: it's Iraq.
Remember how the majority of the Japanese public opposed sending troops to Iraq, but Prime Minister Koizumi went and did it anyway? But when three Japanese working for NGOs were taken hostage (later released unharmed), there was little outcry gainst our JSDF presence there, or even, for that matter, much sympathy for the victims. (It didn't help that it appeared that some of them were seen as leftists more interested in tallying political scores.) And when one reckless Japanese man was taken hostage and later beheaded, even the pacifist and somewhat leftish Asahi opined in its editorial to the effect that that was no time to consider acceding to the insurgent's demands and packing it in. The Japanese people, collectively speaking, even some parts that opposed Mr. Koizumi, was proud of our soldiers.
We have the Australians to thank for getting them all back safe and sound, so there are no stories about mounting casualties. (Iraqis don't matter; we're no better than you.) Still, the years of civil war have taken their toll. As Fumio "I was against the war on Iraq, now I'm for it" Kyuma, our Defense Minister, has admitted (and many others in the LDP will admit), the nuclear umbrella is the main reason Japan continues to stand by the US when the chips are down. And looking to the future, some people are surely thinking, it might not be such a bad thing after all to have an excuse against being so out front when the US comes a-calling for collective self-defense.
The pro-amendment Yomiuri, it seems, does not want to connect the dots here.
*憲法改正が現実味を帯びてきたことで、これまでの改正賛成派の中に改正の動きを慎重に見守りたいとする人が出てきていると見られる。
The Yomiuri has been conducting polls on constitutional amendment for a long time. Support for amendment increased steadily until it crested in 2004, but has fallen every year since.
The article says that "as constitutional amendment has taken on an air of reality, it appears that some people among amendment supporters have emerged who want to watch carefully movements concerning amendment (ed. My translation).*" I know, the explanation looks fishy in Japanese as well. The Yomiuri has been staunchly pro-amendment, so the much longer hard copy article didn't shed much light on the reason either. But I think I know why: it's Iraq.
Remember how the majority of the Japanese public opposed sending troops to Iraq, but Prime Minister Koizumi went and did it anyway? But when three Japanese working for NGOs were taken hostage (later released unharmed), there was little outcry gainst our JSDF presence there, or even, for that matter, much sympathy for the victims. (It didn't help that it appeared that some of them were seen as leftists more interested in tallying political scores.) And when one reckless Japanese man was taken hostage and later beheaded, even the pacifist and somewhat leftish Asahi opined in its editorial to the effect that that was no time to consider acceding to the insurgent's demands and packing it in. The Japanese people, collectively speaking, even some parts that opposed Mr. Koizumi, was proud of our soldiers.
We have the Australians to thank for getting them all back safe and sound, so there are no stories about mounting casualties. (Iraqis don't matter; we're no better than you.) Still, the years of civil war have taken their toll. As Fumio "I was against the war on Iraq, now I'm for it" Kyuma, our Defense Minister, has admitted (and many others in the LDP will admit), the nuclear umbrella is the main reason Japan continues to stand by the US when the chips are down. And looking to the future, some people are surely thinking, it might not be such a bad thing after all to have an excuse against being so out front when the US comes a-calling for collective self-defense.
The pro-amendment Yomiuri, it seems, does not want to connect the dots here.
*憲法改正が現実味を帯びてきたことで、これまでの改正賛成派の中に改正の動きを慎重に見守りたいとする人が出てきていると見られる。
Friday, April 27, 2007
America: I Can Feel Tony Allen Can Feel Mr. Tenet's Pain
Sorry to be in the mood for trivia…
If you think slamdunks can be detrimental to your career, just ask Tony Allen of the Boston Celtics. According to Mark Murphy of the Boston Globe, "[a]fter scoring a career-high 30 points against Denver on Dec. 15, he averaged 21 points on 55.7 percent shooting and 5.5 rebounds during a seven-game stretch from Dec. 29 through Jan. 10. The latter date is infamous. That's when Allen attempted a gratuitous dunk after the whistle and tore the anterior cruciate and medial collateral ligaments in his left knee." This is the second serious knee injury in his career, and no one knows if he will ever regain the explosive athleticism with which he had earned a place in the Celtics starting line-up. If he doesn't, he will be just another earthbound, undersized, under-experienced shooting guard, the last thing the Celtics, or, for that matter, the NBA, need. His career is very much up in the air as he endures a long rehab.
But Mr. Allen has it easy compared to George Tenet. You see, Mr. Tenet, if you will believe him (and I see no reason not to do so), has already seen his entire career go down the drain, all because of a silly slamdunk. And it only happened because that vice president of the errant shooting eye mangled his metaphor (IT WASN’T EVEN A REAL DUNK!) beyond all recognition. Oh, I can just imagine Mr. Tenet protesting, to no avail, with Mssrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mme. Rice, indeed anyone who would listen, including the president himself, that his remarks were being misused in the prosecution of a policy with which he vehemently disagreed. And because of this, five years later, he finds himself unemployable. No wonder he feels compelled to resort to this confessional, to launch a career as a vice-president critic. I cannot wait for the book.
Yes, I feel for Mr. Tenet. I feel for him so much, that I will not begrudge his keeping that Presidential Medal of Freedom that was so graciously draped around his neck by the president himself. After all, if Mr. Allen is going to get to keep his $1.87 million for 2007-2008 whether or not he ever plays another game in the NBA (even though he has no one but himself to blame for his latest misfortune), then surely Mr. Tenet should be allowed to hold on to a mere tin-star keepsake from his glory days in the White House.
And thank you, Stephen G. Esq., for lending me Bambi vs. Godzilla by David Mamet. I can actually hear faint echoes of Mr. Mamet's voice and even politics (Mr. Shallow, that's my name) in this admittedly aeasthetically inferior piece of scribbling, I do.
If you think slamdunks can be detrimental to your career, just ask Tony Allen of the Boston Celtics. According to Mark Murphy of the Boston Globe, "[a]fter scoring a career-high 30 points against Denver on Dec. 15, he averaged 21 points on 55.7 percent shooting and 5.5 rebounds during a seven-game stretch from Dec. 29 through Jan. 10. The latter date is infamous. That's when Allen attempted a gratuitous dunk after the whistle and tore the anterior cruciate and medial collateral ligaments in his left knee." This is the second serious knee injury in his career, and no one knows if he will ever regain the explosive athleticism with which he had earned a place in the Celtics starting line-up. If he doesn't, he will be just another earthbound, undersized, under-experienced shooting guard, the last thing the Celtics, or, for that matter, the NBA, need. His career is very much up in the air as he endures a long rehab.
But Mr. Allen has it easy compared to George Tenet. You see, Mr. Tenet, if you will believe him (and I see no reason not to do so), has already seen his entire career go down the drain, all because of a silly slamdunk. And it only happened because that vice president of the errant shooting eye mangled his metaphor (IT WASN’T EVEN A REAL DUNK!) beyond all recognition. Oh, I can just imagine Mr. Tenet protesting, to no avail, with Mssrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mme. Rice, indeed anyone who would listen, including the president himself, that his remarks were being misused in the prosecution of a policy with which he vehemently disagreed. And because of this, five years later, he finds himself unemployable. No wonder he feels compelled to resort to this confessional, to launch a career as a vice-president critic. I cannot wait for the book.
Yes, I feel for Mr. Tenet. I feel for him so much, that I will not begrudge his keeping that Presidential Medal of Freedom that was so graciously draped around his neck by the president himself. After all, if Mr. Allen is going to get to keep his $1.87 million for 2007-2008 whether or not he ever plays another game in the NBA (even though he has no one but himself to blame for his latest misfortune), then surely Mr. Tenet should be allowed to hold on to a mere tin-star keepsake from his glory days in the White House.
And thank you, Stephen G. Esq., for lending me Bambi vs. Godzilla by David Mamet. I can actually hear faint echoes of Mr. Mamet's voice and even politics (Mr. Shallow, that's my name) in this admittedly aeasthetically inferior piece of scribbling, I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)