The American people are learning a piece of jargon the hard way - experience. This piece of jargon is IED - Improvised Explosive Device. We hear it more often on the news because they are the weapon of choice by those who oppose us in Iraq - that includes the AQ types who have come in from without and the post-Ba'athists. John of Argghhh has posted an unclassified briefing on the IED threat in Iraq, as well as some analysis. He says, in part:

My read, it's going to get worse before it gets better - but it will get better (that's a pure military perspective, the political situation can change all that pretty quickly).

They (the goblins) are learning and adapting. So are we. Right now, I think the goblins are ahead, though not by all that much. As we redirect resources and effort to the problem, it's going to get harder for them to carry out these attacks. That doesn't mean they are going to end, for the goblins are clever to, they will also adapt.

The first thing to take away from the briefing is that this is the very essence of assymetrical warfare. An artillery shell hidden under a pile of rocks, a couple of goons to plant it, one of them sticks around to press the button. On our side, we lose a vehicle, some high tech equipment, maybe a soldier or two. For use to put an artillery shell onto a target, you have to have some watchful eyes on the ground, protected by a ground force, while a battery of gun tubes, supplied by a long train, exists to pull the lanyard. Sure, our SF guys do this with less, but the conventional forces have to have that whole scenario. And if we get a hit, we maybe take out a few bad guys, maybe a fixed facility. That round would cost the US forces tens of thousands of dollars to put it on target (though the incremental cost of adding tens or hundreds more shells to that attack is not all that high). This is what Secretary Rumsfeld meant when he wrote: "The cost-benefit ratio is against us!"

I am actually kind of surprised at how non-advanced these IED's are. They are about as simple as they come - modified military munitions, blasting caps and plastic explosive in the fuse well, and a human being to pull the trigger. That the number of radio controlled devices has increased is a minor technological change, though I imagine the classified version of this briefing has information about the sources of the RF controllers - whether they are military or commercial, new or leftovers from the prior regime. The sourcing is much more important than the technology. And hiding them under a pile of rocks? I expected that the locations of the devices would be more, well, devious.

The point remains, though, that even these very simple means of attacks are effective - the damage done to the M-1 amazes me. And even with a high dud rate, the bad guys are scoring points with the media. For example, the system that was used to attack Wolfowitz's hotel misfired about 80%. It still made an impact, literally and figuratively.

The fact that most of these are command detonated - i.e., someone has to be nearby - and are very simple - i.e., quick to set up - means that the best defense is a good offense. We can't simply defend our way out them. Up-armoring vehicles increases our costs, and doesn't stop the attacks. It will save lives, but you'll still get a picture of a burning truck on CNN. Patrolling the route may have the same effect, but hiding an explosive under a pile of rocks and running a wire doesn't take that long. Stopping to check out every pile of rocks is an even bigger hazard. Now the bad guys just need to pile up some rocks, and they get a perfect setup for an ambush. That is no reason not to take defensive measures, however.

It sounds like a tough situation, and the reason why is because it is. It is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a problem. I don't know that it gets worse before it gets better, but it doesn't get better until it gets better, and it is impossible to predict when that might be. The important thing remains steadfastness in the face of this. Noone wants to see more of our soldiers killed - except maybe Ted Rall and that lot - but we must see this through. While the Japanese and South Koreans may be skittish in the face of this, the British, the Italians, and the Australians are resolute. And we must be also.

For a number of years during the Clinton Administration, I would repeatedly point out to friends and relatives that I thought the next President would face an impossible challenge. Just as Vietnam put us in a hole against the USSR, the years before 9/11 put us far back in the battle to stop non-proliferation and the rise of Islamofacism. I do not only blame Clinton for this, I believe that Bush Sr. and Reagan also share some of the blame. Reagan's share is mitigated by the fact of dealing with the USSR. However, Clinton must have the lion share of the blame. By the mid-90's the problem had become as clear as the smirk on Clinton's face. The only action Clinton really took, apart from the sporadic bombing of Iraq, was the action in the Balkans. And this may have done more harm then good. However, it did halt the spread of Wahhabism in that region.

In any event, by the time of 9/11, it was very late in the game. Pakistan and India were nuclear. Iran and N. Korea were close. Non-proliferation was breaking down on multiple fronts. The Administration was in a very tight spot. I supported the action in Iraq because I thought it may have the outside shot of stopping proliferation attempts in Iran. However, I think it took too long for us to complete the action, and the pacification of Iraq will take too long for us to consolidate our strategy. In the race to stop non-proliferation, especially for the Islamofacists, we started too late, and put too little into it when we began. The harping by the anti-war crowd did not help either. The Administration tried to make the case. Not as well as I would have liked, but they tried.

I think we are starting to see Administration action recognizing this state of affairs. It is not crystal clear, but my take on events lead me to believe this.

1. I think that Kevin over at Incestuous Amplifications reads that USA article correctly. It does smell like a deal in the works, and the question is why. Kevin appears to think that the Administration is thinking election, and while that is surely a factor, I don't think it is determinative.

2. The myriad of uncontested stories about speeding up returning self-governance to the Iraqis. Along with our allies also beginning to back off.

3. Our lackluster action towards Iran on both the terrorist front and the nuclear weapons front Then there is the apparent split between the UK and the Administration over Iran

The Bush Administration has been remarkably clear up until the war in Iraq. I think they knew that the war was our attempt at putting out the fires of non-proliferation. However, I fear our situation was analogous to those San Diego Firefighters. We have arrived at the fires too late. The tinder, left from years of neglect is there, the resources are inadequate, and a hot wind blows fiercely. And there is no letup in sight. When this thing takes off, it is going to be very, very ugly. I think the Administration is recognizing that they cannot stop the fire. They cannot put out N. Korea, Iran, and deal with Iraq, let alone Syria and Libya. The attack on Iraq did not stop Iran or Syria, and appears to have taught them how to deal with the US. We will not get the UN to deal with the situation in time. The Israeli's also appear to recognize the writing on the wall. Their response also suggests that they are helpless to stop it. Hence the wobbliness that has characterized Israeli policies lately.

Folks, we are losing this phase of the war. I do not want to sound like a defeatist, but I fear we need much more pressure applied to various parts of the world to stop this, and I don't see where the resources to apply that pressure will come from. Do you? If I seem like I want to convinced that everything is hunky-dory, and that we are not facing a hostile and wide ranging enemy armed with nuclear weapons in the very near future, then you are reading me correctly. To me this strongly parrallels the situation in the Rhineland in the 1930's, just with stakes that are much, much higher. I think we are facing the loss of phase one, and a very, very hard and dangerous phase two.

The Administration seems to know this, and is floundering in determining how to go about dealing with a hostile world filled with nuclear armed opponents. I don't blame them for floundering. I am floundering.

Please tell me how I am wrong. I want to be convinced.

David Broder had an op-ed on Veteran's day entitled Wanted: A Few Good Vets. In it he praises the draft for having created support for public schools and artistic events, among other things. And he laments the fact that our elected representatives are not veterans to the extent that they used to be.

But as usual, when you hear a liberal praising the draft, you have to wonder what the real agenda is. And in this case, Broder wants "civility" to return to Washington, and he thinks the draft will do it. He recited this story:

With another Veterans Day in mind, I turned to some words that Rep. Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican, delivered at a ceremony in the Capitol four months ago.

LaHood was introducing his predecessor and former boss, retired representative Bob Michel, the former House minority leader, who was one of four past members honored that day.

He spoke of Michel as a teacher whose example could well be emulated by the current generation of lawmakers. And one of the things he said he had learned from Michel was the difference between war and politics.

"Bob knew warfare firsthand -- not war in a Steven Spielberg movie or war fought in the pages of books, but real war." Michel was a combat infantryman in World War II. While still in his early twenties, he fought his way across France, Belgium and Germany. He was wounded by machine gun fire and received two Bronze Star medals for gallantry.

LaHood said that the wartime experience "is the reason he [Michel] never used macho phrases like 'warfare' and 'take no prisoners' when discussing politics with his staff. To Bob, the harsh, personal rhetoric of ideological warfare had no place in his office, no place in the House and no place in American politics. He knew that the rhetoric we use often shapes the political actions we take."

Yes, Bob Michel was the kind of Republican that David Broder likes - the kind that spent his entire legislative career in the minority. During his 14 years as Minority Leader, the Republican caucus never got close, and was never a serious challenge to Democrat dominance of the Congress. So of course Broder prefers him to Newt Gingrich, who is not a veteran, and used pugilistic language in politics. And was the first Republican Majority Leader in 40 years.

And Broder seems a bit hagiographic for the times of those WWII vets in charge of the government, but the truth of the matter is that these guys were in charge for Korea and Viet Nam. I am not saying that being a veteran is a bad thing, but it is clearly not the prescription for good government that Broder seems to remember it as.

Unfortunately, he is not alone in remembering things that way. I have heard G. Gordon Liddy say the exact same thing on his radio show, though I suspect that Liddy is not the sort of veteran that Broder is hoping for in government.

The Republicans are doing a 30 hour debate on judges. I thought that they were forcing Democrats to do a "real" filibuster - make them go through the process of holding the floor to delay debate. But that isn't it at all. This is supposed to be a long debate, and that it will raise American awareness of what is going on. I'm just guessing that folks who watch a lot of C-SPAN already know what is going on. If this is the Republican's "getting tough," I have a feeling that Tom Daschle is right: "We're tougher than they are."

Department of Veteran's Affairs Veteran's Day page. The Army's page. Drop by and read the history of this day. Read Donald Sensing's post. As always, a roundup at Winds Of Change.

If you are a vet (unfortunately not active duty), eat at McCormick & Schmicks.

General MacArthur gave a farewell speech at West Point, his famed "Duty, Honor, Country" speech. A speech for cadets, about officership. And in it, he gave the highest praise to the American soldier.

And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave? Are they capable of victory?

Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.

His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast.

But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements.

In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.

From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs of the glee club, in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God.

I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: Duty, Honor, Country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light.

And twenty years after, on the other side of the globe, against the filth of dirty foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those boiling suns of the relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation of those they loved and cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropic disease, the horror of stricken areas of war.

Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory - always victory, always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following your password of Duty, Honor, Country.

The code which those words perpetuate embraces the highest moral laws and will stand the test of any ethics or philosophies ever promulgated for the uplift of mankind. Its requirements are for the things that are right, and its restraints are from the things that are wrong. The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training - sacrifice. In battle and in the face of danger and death, he discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when he created man in his own image. No physical courage and no brute instinct can take the place of the Divine help which alone can sustain him. However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country, is the noblest development of mankind.

Read or listen to the whole thing.