A very busy morning in the blogosphere. Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

Shoe blogging from Beautiful Atrocities. The blogosphere and its footware.
• Nanopundit posts
  the biggest nanonews of the year: an FDA application for the use of nanoparticles in treating metastatic
  breast cancer (hat tip: BitsBlog).
• Brad DeLong posts
  the Reader’s Digest version of Chinese trade policy.
• Glen Wishard of Canis Iratus
  has a word frequency analysis of the report of the independent review panel on Ra^thergate.
  Guess what words don’t occur.
• Another of my favorite blogs, Duophony, has closed up shop.
• More nanotechnology in treating cancer from FuturePundit.
• More earthquake theology from Norm Geras.
• David Adesnik of OxBlog has thoughts about Scott Ritter.
• Angela Wright of Politopics has a rundown of commentary on Armstrong Williams.
• South Knox Bubba has commentary
  on the cutbacks in TennCare announced yesterday by Tennessee’s governor and a rundown of commentary on the actions.

That’s the lot.

The Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of posts from Iraqi bloggers, is up on Dean’s World! This week we’ve got perspectives on the upcoming election, negative thinking and positive thinking, Hubby speaks and gives us the view from the Green Zone, and a lot more.

This morning Andrew Sullivan linked to a subscription-required article from Stratfor and quotes a snippet from it. Mr. Sullivan’s observations on the Stratfor article and the tantalizing smidgeon he quotes leave me with a lot more questions than answers. From Sullivan:

Like many other smart analysts, the pro-war Stratfor military experts have concluded that the war to control the Iraq insurgency or to erect democratic institutions in Iraq has been lost (subscription required). I think it’s time to start truly absorbing this possibility. Why lost? Because we blew the opportunity to control the terrain with insufficient troops and terrible intelligence; because all the institutions required to build democracy in Iraq have already been infiltrated by insurgents; because at key moments – they mention the fall of 2003 or spring of 2004 – we simply failed to crush the insurgency when we might have had a chance of success.

What has changed since spring of 2004? Since fall of 2003? Would the use of the level of force recently used in Fallujah back in the spring have saved the situation? Why? Greater force? Was that politically possible?

From Stratfor, quoted by Sullivan:

The issue facing the Bush administration is simple. It can continue to fight the war as it has, hoping that a miracle will bring successes in 2005 that didn’t happen in 2004. Alternatively, it can accept the reality that the guerrilla force is now self-sustaining and sufficiently large not to flicker out and face the fact that a U.S. conventional force of less than 150,000 is not likely to suppress the guerrillas.

Aren’t there other alternatives? Isn’t it possible (even likely), for example, that the Iraqi government put in place after the January 30 election will authorize the use of/use substantially more force than the U. S. has seen fit to use to date in providing security i.e. rooting out the insurgents?

More to the point, it can recognize these facts: 1. The United States cannot re-engineer Iraq because the guerrillas will infiltrate every institution it creates.

Has this changed since spring of 2004? Fall of 2003? Or has this been true since the very beginning?

2. That the United States by itself lacks the intelligence capabilities to fight an effective counterinsurgency

Do the combined nations of the world have sufficient intelligence capabilities to fight an effective counterinsurgency in Iraq?

3. That exposing U.S. forces to security responsibilities in this environment generates casualties without bringing the United States closer to the goal.

Under its obligations under the Geneva Conventions the United States was required as the occupying power to undertake security responsibilities until sovereignty was restored. Until the Iraqis are ready to undertake this themselves it’s still a pragmatic necessity. What are the authors suggesting?

4. That the strain on the U.S. force is undermining its ability to react to opportunities and threats in the rest of the region. And that, therefore, this phase of the Iraq campaign must be halted as soon as possible.

I don’t think that anyone disagrees with this. The question, of course, is how.
Sullivan concludes:

They recommend withdrawing U.S. forces to the periphery of Iraq and letting the inevitable civil war take place in the center.

How is such a civil war in the strategic interests of the United States?

Although it may read like it I didn’t intend the foregoing as a fisking—I’m really interested in the answers to these questions. I was not in favor of invading Iraq largely on prudential grounds since I envisioned something not unlike what has actually happened unless the United States forces took an approach to security substantially more aggressive than would have been supported by anything resembling a consensus of Americans. But now we’re there. Aren’t the strategic and political implications of letting Iraq fend for itself substantially more disadvantageous to America’s grand strategy than never having invaded at all? Are they really proposing that we exit Iraq with a strategic defeat?

Sullivan and (presumably) Stratfor favored the war. At least initially. Why did they support a war that they now appear to believe has always been politically impossible to win? If they were wrong, why should we believe them now.

I’m further concerned by the larger implications of all of this. Do they suggest that we shouldn’t ever engage in military action in the area regardless of the provocation since we can’t guarantee that a rump native government will remain in place, we don’t have the military intelligence to fight a successful counterinsurgency, and we can’t prevent any institutions we put into place from being infiltrated by the opposition? What are their alternatives? Should we disengage from the area completely? Do they suggest that we abrogate the Geneva Conventions? Fight wars of extermination?

Perhaps someone with access to the entire article can help me with this. But as it is I’m just left with too many questions.

UPDATE: There have been some responses to Sullivan’s post and to mine from Zenpundit, Ali of Free Iraqi, and Amba of Ambivablog.

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

As I was performing my regular rounds this morning I heard some interviews on NPR with the administrators, teachers, and students from a private Islamic school in Indonesia about the tsunami. One of the teachers was quoted as saying “we will meet to pray for the dead”. This struck me. I don’t know that much about Islam but perhaps someone better informed can fill me in. Do Muslims believe in Purgatory?

The idea of praying for the dead has been attested in Christianity from a very early date—the first or second century AD. That’s the source of the idea of Purgatory. When you think about it Purgatory is a very peculiar idea and it’s a characteristic of some but not all Christian denominations.

If there’s only the binary choice of Heaven or Hell and the soul is assigned to one or the other at death, either the practice of praying for the dead can’t be effective, it’s possible to conjure God (which is blasphemous), or it’s possible to change God’s mind (which would seem to contradict the omniscience of God). Since the earliest Christians—those who had known Jesus or those who had known those who had known Jesus—believed in the efficacy of prayers for the dead, early Church Fathers concluded that it must be possible for the soul to make progress after death through the intercession of the prayers of the faithful and came up with the idea of Purgatory through inference.

So, do Muslims believe in Purgatory? Or is this a case where there’s a distinction between the folk religion and the formal religion?

Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

• Ambivablog on the Feldenkrais Method, torture, and George Washington.
• Gerard Vanderleun on the limits of compassion.
• xrlq of Damnum Absque Injuria jumps into a debate on the social obligations of gun owners.
• Tim Worstall muses on the indigenous cuisine of England including lasagna and chicken tikka masala.

That’s the lot.

It’s pretty quiet today here in the blogosphere. Here’s a few things to take a quick glance at:

• Juan Cole of Informed Comment draws our attention to Sistani’s observations on
  Sunni participation in the upcoming elections in Iraq.
• John of Iberian Notes has some interesting stuff on the Spanish Army.
• Tigerhawk explains how he owes his life to Louis Rukeyser.
• Glenn Reynolds cites a David Frum article on the myth of the moral authority of the UN. I think I said it better here.

Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

• Gerard Vanderleun of American Digest in response to the Diplomad post I cited
  yesterday follows up with a post describing how the HPVE does New York.

  I think there’s a distinction that needs to be made. It’s possible to despise the United Nations
  and call for it’s abolition while loving the united nations and believing they should work together
  a lot more. It’s simultaneously heart-warming and eye-popping to see what people of good will and
  common goals can achieve together. How does a standing body facilitate this? Judging by the UN response
  to the Sumatran tsunami, not much. What it really seems to do is give those who neither have the good will
  nor share the common goals legitimacy they would otherwise not possess.

• There are blogs for everything these days. A new one, Circadiana, is devoted to
  sleep and sleep disorders (hat tip: Boing Boing).
• I’d like to ask a question to the economists in the house: what effects does this
  have on economies and measurements of their performance? (hat tip: again Boing Boing. Well, they are wonderful things.)
• Wired picks the top vaporware of 2004 (products that were announced and never materialized—and may never materialize). So many to choose from how did they decide?
• Noah Millman of Gideon’s Blog, in seeming answer to my plea earlier this week, has written
  a brilliant post on pragmatism.
• I see that media girl likes snow, too.
• South Knox Bubba which, along with Pennywit
  is among my favorite left-leaning blogs, has been nominated for a Koufax award for Best Overall Blog by a Non-Professional.
  Follow the links, take a look, and vote for him. I note that when other left-leaning blogs were ignoring
  the Sumatran tsunami or just using it as a stick for Bush-bashing, SKB was linking to sites to contribute
  to relief. He’s a good egg.

That’s the lot.

Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

• Jubal of The Dead Parrot Society tells us about the ten things he noticed on his Roman holiday.
• The Diplomad is in rare form:
  

  This Embassy has been running 24/7 since the December 26 earthquake and tsunami. Along with my colleagues, I’ve spent the past several days dealing non-stop with various aspects of the relief effort in this tsunami-affected country. That work, unfortunately, has brought ever-increasing contact with the growing UN presence in this capital; in fact, we’ve found that to avoid running into the UN, we must go out to where the quake and tsunami actually hit. As we come up on two weeks since the disaster struck, the UN is still not to be seen where it counts — except when holding well-staged press events. Ah, yes, but the luxury hotels are full of UN assessment teams and visiting big shots from New York, Geneva, and Vienna. The city sees a steady procession of UN Mercedes sedans and top-of-the-line SUV’s — a fully decked out Toyota Landcruiser is the UN vehicle of choice; it doesn’t seem that concerns about “global warming” and preserving your tax dollars run too deep among the UNocrats.

• Angela Winters of Politopics writes on the perils and promise of being Barack Obama.
• triticale comments on illegal drug money as a source of venture capital.
• Todd Zywicki of The Volokh Conspiracy on the image aspect of hybrid cars.
• Tim Worstall notes that teabags are biohazards.

That’s the lot.