I live in line with an approach to Dulles Airport.

I still don't know whether I am comforted or not when I see the fighters are back up.

If Ben Stein is right, I may have to revisit my WWIII lineup.

A simple but frightening conjecture: What if Iraq and North Korea are working together?

Good guys: US, Israel, Russia, and India.
Bad guys: Every majority Muslim nation in the world save Turkey.

What would a blog be without a proper Fisking? William Raspberry of the Washington Post has some "Questions That Bother and Bewilder".

The U.S. military, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has assured those who raised the question, is quite capable of waging the virtually foreordained war with Iraq and taking on the newly feisty North Korea. I wish someone could settle my own questions with such clarity and conviction. I've got a ton of them.

For instance, has the decision to forgo unilateral military action against Iraq in favor of taking the matter of Iraqi violations to the United Nations been subverted into some sort of Catch-22? Our government seems to be telling us that if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein denies having weapons of mass destruction, while we know he does have them, that falsehood becomes a material breach of Iraq's agreement, and reason to take Saddam Hussein out militarily. But if Saddam Hussein admits to having such weapons, he stands convicted out of his own mouth and therefore we have no choice but to take him out.

("We know he's got those weapons of mass destruction," satirist Mark Russell explained the other day. "We've got the receipts!")

And Mark Russell - he's still alive?

Is America really serious that the war we propose is for the purpose of bringing democracy to the people of Iraq? Is it hopelessly cynical to imagine that democratization is a much lower priority than controlling Iraqi oil reserves, asserting our authority in that part of the world and (perhaps) avenging our president's father?

I mean, Saddam Hussein at least pretends to have a democracy. Our allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait don't even go through the charade.

Which brings me to another set of questions. Is it possible to call attention to our own duplicity or Saudi Arabia's lack of democracy without seeming to say that Saddam Hussein is innocent? He's not, of course. He's pretty much all the things the administration has said he is.

But is he such an imminent threat to the United States as to justify our unilateral military action against him? Is war -- a war that is likely to cost thousands of innocent Iraqi lives -- the only way to remove whatever remains of Saddam Hussein's ability to wreak international havoc? Will our effort to take him out -- even if successful -- create more havoc than it prevents?

If the proposed war is less about democracy and more about opposing international terrorism, why am I mistaken in the view that an attack on Baghdad likely would spawn more anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorism and increase -- perhaps many fold -- the number of terrorists who see us as the international menace?

And by the way, how much of the commitment to rid the world of Saddam Hussein is calculated to meet Israel's needs rather than our own? As important as it is to avoid the logical trap that to oppose the war is to proclaim Saddam Hussein's innocence, one must be careful not to buy into the line of those who oppose the war because they hate Israel. But if we are willing to launch a war at least partly for Israel's sake, shouldn't we have a little more clout than we appear to have over such matters as the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories?

One of the key questions in my mind is how those who make our policy see the role of the United States. Do they see us as the only adults in a room full of squabbling children -- the only ones with both the clarity of vision and the military wherewithal to undertake the unpleasant task of belling the aggressive cats of the world? Do they see us as Johnny Appleseeds of democracy?

Or do they see us, as I sometimes fear, as some sort of international Dirty Harry, packing lots of heat and requiring only the thinnest of pretexts (and little patience for procedural and evidentiary niceties) to rid the world of its scum?

Finally, do they think -- does America think -- that it's too late to work at peace, that it's wimpy to wonder why so much of the world dislikes us, that it's a form of appeasement to try to show the world our better nature?

How much will NOT going to war cost?

NYT reports that White House Budget director says a war with Iraq will cost $50-60 billion.

No mention of what it would cost if Hussein gives a nuke to Al Qaida and they leave New York a glowing cinder.

Well, that's what the Village Voice would have you believe in this article by Tom Robbins.
I suppose they are doing what they think of as a good deed, telling their readership that they support the troops, because the troops aren't bad guys. In fact, some even don't agree with everything President Bush says! (As if in the 60's the Corps of Cadets was unified in its agreement with everything President Johnson said.)

And look, they even teach these cadets to be *ethical!* Perhaps the author should pick up a book sometime, there are plenty available as this is the bicentennial year of West Point, and read about when ethics was introduced at West Point.

The 60's are never over for some people.

Fox News is reporting that the FBI is looking for "five men of Arab ancestry who may have entered the country illegally last week."

Actually, on the air just now, Mansoor Ijaz says he thinks they aren't Arab, but likely Pakistani and maybe Algerian.

FBI wanted poster.

UPDATE Not just Fox - CNN and MSNBC have it, too.

I see people making the assertion that the Bush administration is trying to build an American Empire, and the proof is to be found in the Project for the New American Century and the recent National Security Strategy issued by the White House - and that is usually accompanied by the further assertion that the 2 documents are the same.

The people who make these assertions have apparently not read what the NSS or any of the reports from PNAC. Start with the main report from PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses.

Here are the Key Findings of that document:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:

• defend the American homeland;
  
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
  
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
  critical regions;
  
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
  

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:

MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.

RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.

REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine
Corps.

CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.

DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.

CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave
the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.

EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which

• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
  
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.

INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross
domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

The National Security Strategy is an entirely different document. It is, as one might expect, more comprehensive than just what the Department of Defense is doing for National Security.

From the overview of the NSS, this is what it is about:

And this path is not America’s alone. It is open to all. To achieve these goals, the United States will:

• champion aspirations for human dignity;
  
• strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
  
• work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
  
• prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
  
• ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
  
• expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
  
• develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
  
• transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.
  

I still don't see the part about empire.

Here's the lineup.

Good guys: US, Israel, Russia, and India.

Bad guys: Every majority Muslim nation in the world save Turkey.

I don't hold with the WWIII=The Cold War formulation, making the War on Terror (WOT) WWIV. This is truly the next World War, and we have really just gotten started.

Just a test, to get this thing rolling, and then I'll start blogging for real.