Hey Africa, you're having a party! And guess who you invited!!

You all know that I’m quite alarmed by the threat of China, Russia, and SCO to the future wellbeing of the United States. I’m always squawking about the latest meeting, or the latest military action, etc. But today I feel like the US after the first Gulf War, when we found that Iraq was much further along in their nuclear weapons program than we had thought.

Check this out:

With little fanfare, a staggering 750,000 Chinese have settled in Africa over the past decade. More are on the way.

The strategy has been carefully devised by officials in Beijing, where one expert has estimated that China will eventually need to send 300 million people to Africa to solve the problems of over-population and pollution.

??? I had known that China was sending aid packets and cutting economic deals all over Africa in order to extend their influence and gain access to Africa’s natural resources. But I didn’t know they were planning on moving in!

Speaking of Africa’s natural resources:

Pristine forests are being destroyed, with China taking up to 70 per cent of all timber from Africa.
…
China is hungry - for land, food and energy. While accounting for a fifth of the world’s population, its oil consumption has risen 35-fold in the past decade and Africa is now providing a third of it; imports of steel, copper and aluminium have also shot up, with Beijing devouring 80 per cent of world supplies.
…
The result of China’s demand for raw materials and its sales of products to Africa is that turnover in trade between Africa and China has risen from £5 million annually a decade ago to £6 billion today.

Wow. More than a 1000X increase in trade in 10 years.

The article goes on to deplore China’s poor record on human rights in Africa, its massive arms sales, and its undercutting of the native African industries. All of those are important in the near term, but in the long term, the immigration of Chinese into Africa will probably have the greatest impact. It’s already much farther along than I would ever have imagined:

All over this great continent, the Chinese presence is swelling into a flood. Angola has its own ‘Chinatown’, as do great African cities such as Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.

Exclusive, gated compounds, serving only Chinese food, and where no blacks are allowed, are being built all over the continent. ‘

Very worrisome.

[H/T to Hot Air]

MarkinNJ was kind enough to point out today’s NYT editorial on Obama and Iraq, an editorial which presents an unbelievably distorted and often shamelessly dishonest set of talking points, all with the idea of claiming that . . get this . . .

Obama’s Iraq & Afghanistan policy is better than McCain’s.

First let’s run through the tired canards that the NYT poses. You’ll recognize all of them, since they are exactly Obama’s talking points:

• “Bush…starting a war of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure”
• “Mr. McCain is .. largely adopting Mr. Bush’s blind defense of an unending conflict.”
• “…has dangerously diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
• “We have no idea what winning means to Mr. McCain. Mr. Bush initially promised a free and democratic Iraq. …he will be lucky to leave behind a marginally functioning central government in a very fragile and violent country.”
• “…the less incentive Iraqis have to settle their political differences.”
• “Iraq’s leaders have asked for a withdrawal timetable.”

Most conservative blog readers have seen the refutations of these points many times, so I won’t go into them unless it comes up in the comments. But I’ll say that I’m delighted to see that the NYT is depending on the McCain “100 year war” lie to bolster their case. And the fact that they haven’t yet acknowledged either the fact that Maliki did not ask for a withdrawal timetable, nor the political progress in Iraq, shows just how much they are lagging on current events.

Just like they lagged on acknowledging the success of the surge, which had been reported in conservative blogs for a year. The NYT finally noticed it two weeks ago. As did Obama, for that matter. Somehow the NYT failed to note that Obama was a vociferous opponent of the surge, predicting its failure on both military and political fronts. As did the NYT itself. In fact, the NYT and Obama are so inseparable that I’ll just call them NYTObama (pronounced “ny-to-ba-ma”) henceforth.

Let’s get down to the foreign policy aspects of their respective positions.

First I would pose this question to NYTObama: “Does Iraq have any strategic value to the United States?” In this case I mean strategic value in the geopolitical sense. NYTObama has never acknowledged any value there.

Let me answer the question for them: Afghanistan has no geopolitical value; Iraq has tons. Seeing the Iraq reconstruction through to a successful resolution is critical to regional stability and world peace. Getting a base in Afghanistan would be convenient. Getting a base in Iraq would be world-changing.

Second, we promised to see the reconstruction through. We owe it to the Iraqi people to do just that. I’m sorry that Al Qaeda invested more resources in conquering Iraq than we expected, and I’m sorry that the Sunnis went to ground to create a dug-in insurgency. I’m particularly sorry that Moqtada al Sadr was left to build up his private militia, and that all three of these factions were more resilient and cunning than we hoped. These factors have led to prolonged instability and horrific violence, and that has led to an increased cost to the US in both money and lives.

But there’s no such thing as a fixed-budget war, nor a fixed-timeline reconstruction in an insecure environment. You keep trudging forward until the mission is complete, even if you’ve spent $656 billion to date. Now, when we’re on the verge of success, NYTObama’s sole focus is the safety of American troops. Leaving a small contingent of troops to deal with Al Qaeda is inadequate, if Iraq’s Army isn’t fully functional. Continuing to bring the Iraqi Army up to speed, however, means that we’ll never have to deal with Al Qaeda in Iraq again.

Third, winning in Iraq would be an immense embarrassment to Al Qaeda, as well as to Iran and Syria. It would serve as a natural brake to Iran’s regional ambitions. It would also take Russia and China aback. All positive aspects that NYTObama is willing to abandon.

Fourth, NYTObama has used, and continues to use, fairy dust when dealing with Pakistan. Make no mistake - we have wanted to pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda into Pakistan since 2001. We have been forbidden by the internally conflicted Pakistani government to do just that.

NYTObama, however, claims that we can solve the problem of Pakistan by giving some more aid and positioning our troops on the border. It would be nice if tripling the aid budget to Pakistan would cause fundamentalists in the government to suddenly drop their anti-US biases and allow our troops in, but I think it’s very unlikely.

Fifth, the Bush administration has no incentive to keep the bulk of our troops in Iraq, and has in fact already started withdrawing them. I’m sure that with the elections looming they’d love to accelerate the withdrawal. But Petraeus says he needs a 45 day evaluation period before he commits to further withdrawals, and the administration is giving him the time he needs.

NYTObama makes it sound like Bush enjoys having our troops deployed in Iraq, or that he has some other, mysterious motivation for keeping them there. Not so. He’s keeping them there because the Commander of MNFI is telling them they need to stay there. Supposedly that’s what Obama would do, only faster somehow. More fairy dust.

Sixth, the Pentagon is already evaluating the situation in Afghanistan, and is weighing the necessity of additional troop deployments. Bush will undoubtedly follow their recommendation. And as NYTObama almost acknowledges, the US is not responsible for security in Afghanistan. NATO is. The US is not particularly happy with NATO’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan: just as in Basra, the “light footprint” favored by the British has allowed growth of the insurgency. We’re just as unexcited about adding troops under NATO command.

The Media. The media is amazing. They have harped on the security situation in Iraq for five years, and as soon as it’s resolved, they start grousing about Afghanistan. One of their benchmarks is US casualties, which have risen in Afghanistan over the past couple of months. But this is as much due to the increased operational tempo (i.e., we’re attacking the Taliban) as to an increase in attacks by the Taliban. Their (the media’s) latest gaffe was the report of the 9 US casualties in the attack on the remote outpost. Somehow the media forgot to mention that we won the battle, though outnumbered by 5:1.

In the article by the NYT, they make this claim (in addition to the “endless war” claim):

Mr. Bush initially promised a free and democratic Iraq. After spending $656 billion, his administration has retreated from such grandiose notions

He retreated, huh? Somebody should have told Bush:

And while this war is difficult, it is not endless. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success. The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States. The day will come when Iraq is a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East.

Let me conclude with NYTObama’s most obvious clueless statement:

He pointed out that the military cannot sustain Mr. Bush’s troop surge. “True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future,” he said.

Um, guys? The surge is over. The military already sustained it.

Yeesh.

Yes, 10 days ago I mentioned that the Surge had ended, even as many liberals were clinging to the notion that it had failed. Today Time Magazine catches up:

The military surge into Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended. But 150,000 U.S. troops remain, as many as 15,000 more than before the buildup began.

In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division’s 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year, left the country.

Its departure marks the end of what the Pentagon calls the “surge.”

You’re slow, MSM. So slow.

If only we would give diplomacy with Iran a chance! We just need to sit down with them and talk things out on the basis of mutual benefit! At least that’s what folk like Obama and Kissinger tell us. But the EU has been negotiating with Iran for 5 years, with the US hovering over the negotiations for most of that time.

And what has that 5 years bought us?

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said talks had produced little so far.

“We are for dialogue with Iran, but we have tried it for years, (EU foreign policy chief) Solana and us. It hasn’t delivered very much, let’s be realistic,” he said.

“And here we are. The Iranian response says “Yes” to dialogue, but nothing on the conditions,” he said.

Have they made any progress at all? Is there the slightest glimmer of hope that some compromise can be reached? Has Iran softened its stance one whit since negotiations began?

Well, no:

“We have no intention of changing this path,” said the three-page, English-language version of letter by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, alluding to its campaign for a nuclear fuel industry.

It’s funny - that sounds just like the progress we had made 2 1/2 years ago:

Talks between Europe and Iran stalled late yesterday to a near standstill and the E.U. joined with the U.S. in its decision to refer Iran to the UN for possible sanctions.

“Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end,” the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said at a news conference in Berlin Germany. “From our point of view, the time has come for the UN Security Council to become involved.” …

Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State, said that “Iran’s actions have shattered the basis for negotiation.”

Same story, the only difference being that since the earlier stalled talks, Iran has managed to get its centrifuges running.

It looks likes diplomacy works after all. For Iran.

Just a couple of days ago I was remarking on the California Democrats’ initiatives to make California more expensive for already-burdened businesses. The Dems seem to feel that businesses are unlimited supply of easy money for government use. Today we see the obvious result:

California State Automobile Association will close its California call centers - including its 500-employee Elk Grove facility - earlier than expected and send the jobs out of state, citing the cost to do business in California.
…
In all, about 900 people work at the three centers.

Supporters of increased business taxes are fond of saying that it is real estate prices, not personal or business taxes, that drives people and businesses from the state. Let’s check in on the AAA’s perspective.

“It costs more to do business in California than other states,” she continued, adding that increased demand for AAA’s services and AAA’s expanded geographic reach were also factors.

So rather than expanding their existing facilities, they’re going to layoff 900 people and start new, larger facilities in Oklahoma and Arizona. They must have been highly motivated to leave California.

Like many other companies are.

If you look at the comments in the previous post, or even the post itself, you’ll see that I’m a little hard on Barack for his ignorance of the military. Then I read Michael’s post on the latest WaPo-ABC poll, where they find:

Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, will deliver what his campaign is billing as a “major address” on Iraq today in Washington, part of an effort to convince voters that he could serve effectively as commander in chief. The public is also evenly divided on that question, with 48 percent saying he would be an effective leader of the military and 48 percent saying he would not.

This is a pathetic question, since “effective leader” depends upon what you want out of the military. If you want the military out of Iraq and safely at home, then Obama could be an effective leader. If you want a positive outcome in Iraq, however, Obama would be one of your last choices.

Even the most blind Obamacolyte would have to recognize that Obama really whiffed it on the surge. Despite his attempt to recast his position as a moderate stance, his opposition to the surge on the basis that it would fail to improve security is well documented.

So the next time WaPo-ABC conduct a poll, maybe they could be a little more specific in their questions. Asking “do you think that Barack Obama could lead the military to victory in Iraq?” might give a very different result than the question they asked.

I unfortunately let this slip by a week ago, back when Barack Obama was babbling to Diane Sawyer about his understanding of the President’s relationship with the military:

“…it is my job as commander in chief to set up a strategy. It’s their job to execute tactics.”

Wow. That is one of the most clueless interpretations of military planning that I’ve ever heard. Here’s how it really works:

1. The President makes a policy statement, such as “The United States must invade Iraq.” Or, in this case, “The United States must exit Iraq within 16 months.”
2. The Secretary of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff then send down the policy statement (usually with refinements, clarifications, or their pet interests added) to the services and the leader of the operation.
3. The leader & services prepare strategies to accomplish the goals of the policy statement.
4. They present the strategic plan to the SecDef and JCS for approval, and begin implementation.
5. Local units use tactical planning & execution to accomplish their responsibilities under the strategic plan.
6. SecDef & JCS brief the President on the approach and ongoing progress

Note that Obama doesn’t ever set up a strategy (Thank God!) - he makes policy. It is the military that sets up and executes the strategy. Tactics never enter the picture at the highest levels - they are left to the company grade officers to implement.

In that very brief statement, Obama demonstrated that he knows nothing about the military nor his relationship with the military. He apparently doesn’t even understand the definitions of “strategy” or “tactics.” He also managed to insult the General Staff by belittling their role and characterizing them as minions doing his bidding.

This is not the sort of man who should be leading our military.

I was looking at the Wikipedia article entitled War in Afghanistan (2001-present), reading about the start of the war and such. But then I noticed this sentence in the section of the article talking about Osama bin Laden’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks:

However bin Laden’s FBI profile does not name him as the author of the attacks [19] and there is some debate as to whether or not it is actually bin Laden in the video.[20]

Does anybody really doubt at this point that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks? It’s true that bin Laden’s FBI Most Wanted profile doesn’t name him as the author of the attacks, and this little oddity has been the source of many a conspiracy theory. But in 2006, the Washington Post published “Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?.” In that article, the author talks to the FBI about the missing charges, and gets this answer:

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government’s long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

“There’s no mystery here,” said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. “They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it.”
…
The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice,” the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. “Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.”

Oddly, the Wikipedia omits any mention of this debunking, only including the completely manufactured conspiratorial version. Suffice to say that no competent, authoritative source questions OBL’s involvement, but Wikipedia sees fit to include this little gem in their entry.

The second half of the quote is even funnier. Since I quoted it a while ago, I’ll reprint it here, “…there is some debate as to whether or not it is actually bin Laden in the video.” The reference they use for that claim is a BBC article, “Could the Bin Laden Video be a Fake?” But if you read the BBC article, this is the source of the claim:

But while Washington’s allies have been quick to judge the tape as evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt, many in the Arab world doubt its authenticity.

That’s it. They have put a caveat on one of the most heinous crimes in US history, based on the vague statement that “many in the Arab world” doubt its authenticity.

Enemy Combatants. Then a pair of sentences leapt out at me:

Also, the U.S. Administration did not officially declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[30] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[31]

Reference 30 is a BBC article describing the case of Huzaifa Parhat, an Uighur who petitioned to have his case reviewed:

The ruling, by a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was in response to a petition under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

This allows detainees a limited review of their status as “enemy combatants”.

“The court directed the government to release or transfer Parhat, or to expeditiously hold a new tribunal,” a notice from the court said.

The military’s decision that he was an enemy combatant was “invalid”, the court ruled.

That’s good news for Mr. Parhat, but does it really amount to challenging the US position on the designation of detainees, or was it just that this particular fellow was able to convince the court of his innocence? Of course it was the latter - this case did not set a precedent or overturn the US definition of “enemy combatant,” as the Wikipedia entry implies.

And how about the claim that their status has “been questioned by military lawyers?” Well, that supporting reference (#31) is actually an article written in the Huffington Post - clearly not a neutral source. The article itself isn’t too bad (though frankly and proudly biased), but has absolutely nothing to do with questioning the legal status of detainees at Guantanamo. The article is about a disagreement between the chief prosecutor (Col. Morris Davis) and two of his superiors concerning what he perceived as inappropriate interference with the legal process.
Perhaps there is an article somewhere that supports Wikipedia’s point, but this one isn’t it.

Summary. So this very important Wikipedia entry has at least two sentences that are completely unjustified as written. The supporting cites don’t actually support their statements, and in the case of Osama bin Laden’s role in the 9/11 attack, they have chosen to represent speculation by conspiracists as respectable alternatives to the official story.

I admire Wikipedia’s devotion to making information freely available to everyone, but they could really, really, use more responsible editing.

This broken.

Russia and China vetoed on Friday a Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe for holding a violent presidential poll that was boycotted by the opposition candidate.

They didn’t need both of them to veto the resolution - they were just showing off the strength of their alliance.

Will the UN ever be able to get anything done again?

This ought to do wonders for the California business environment:

Democrats on Tuesday proposed billions in tax increases on businesses and high earners to help bridge California’s budget shortfall.

The proposed hikes include rolling back the dependent child income tax credit expanded in the 1990s, creating two higher income tax brackets for the state’s biggest earners and increasing corporate taxes.

Fortunately, it’s unlikely to pass:

The long-awaited list of revenue proposals faces near certain defeat, however, as Republican lawmakers have repeatedly said they are unified in their opposition to any tax increases.

I don’t know why anybody still does business in California. I left 8 years ago, partly due to the state income tax burden (9.3% vs. 4.6% in Colorado) and the PitA business regulations. California still has the best climate and best university system in the country, but it is strangling itself with its poor business environment and oppressive tax system.

Some have said that the reason people leave is due to housing costs, rather than income tax. That’s likely true, but if the income tax were lower, housing prices wouldn’t take such a big bite out of their take-home pay. You can’t really separate the two.

But the Dems’ answer is always to increase taxes on the successful and thriving.