Rays sweep Tigers, pace AL East

The Tampa Bay Devil* Rays continued atop the AL East division with a sweep of the Detroit Tigers at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg.

The Rays overcame a dominating pitching performance by Armando Galarraga to win in 10 innings. Galarraga allowed just four hits and one earned run in 7.0 innings, but the Rays started hitting once Detroit's bullpen took over the game.

Carlos Pena gets my series MVP award because of solid defense, a key homer in the first game of the series and for drawing a walk in his 10th inning at-bat to salt away the third win over the Tigers. Pena's batting average has continued to gradually creep up toward .250 since the All-Star break after his cold-hitting start.

Rays obtain right-handed bat just after trading deadline?

clipped from tampabay.rays.mlb.com Rocco Baldelli hit .297 with three homers and eight RBIs in 13 rehab games at Triple-A Montgomery. (AP)

As good as B. J. Upton has projected in center field, Rocco Baldelli looked just about as good just a few years ago. Baldelli, unfortunately, has suffered a series of injuries culminating in an unusual mitochondrial disorder that causes him to experience chronic fatigue.

Baldelli has battled through his illness--there is no known cure--and finished a rehab stint in the minor leagues. The potential return of Baldelli's bat in the lineup may have figured in the Rays' reluctance to pay a high price in talent for a short-term fix for the right-handed bat problem.

The "Wildcat" armored vehicle

While searching for MRAP news I ran across a YouTube video of the Wildcat:

Obamanomics bad

Hat tip to American Power:

Additional analysis on Obama's political economy is provided by Michael Boskin: "Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession."

Navistar awarded $57 million in MRAP contracts

The Pentagon on Friday awarded Navistar International a pair of contracts totaling about $57 million. Both contracts involve support services for and modifications to existing MaxxPro Cat I MRAP vehicles.

Iraq violence update, August 2008

The numbers are in for July 2008, apart from late revisions. As usual, I've taken the numbers compiled from the good folks at icasualties.org and generated Excel graphs from their numbers.

Two things to note. First, the numbers may change as noted above. That means my graphs may not agree with the numbers posted tomorrow or the day after. Second, to aid in interpretation of the numbers in terms of recent events, the monthly graphs will cover the past year (13 months of data including the data from the same month last year). The graphs are somewhat easier to read that way, though I'll also periodically produce graphs representing longer time frames in order to emphasize changes over those longer periods.



The violent death numbers for civilians and Iraqi security forces follows the trend I have predicted since the Mahdi Army confrontation spike. The number nearly dropped below 400 for July save for a set of attacks by female suicide bombers near the end of the month. It would be interesting to know how the per capita numbers compare with those from Turkey, Syria, Saudia Arabia and Iran.



Mainstream media outlet have been running some stories about the historically low death rate among coalition troops for July. The number reported by icasualties.org differs from DoD numbers by two, and I'm quite certain that the difference occurs because the DoD did not count the recovery of bodies of soldiers who went missing over a year ago as July deaths. Two such were recovered last month.

Why are we winning in Iraq?

Richard Fernandez ("The Belmont Club") has a good analysis of the reasons behind the success in Iraq, undercutting some of the goofy explanations offered from the left:

Two assertions about Iraq ought to be challenged or at least examined more closely. The first is the idea that security improvements in Iraq and al-Qaeda’s defeat had little if anything to do with the US effort. The second is the assertion that the “real” strategic center of gravity always should have been Afghanistan, because the proper object of the War is to “get bin Laden”.
(read the rest)

Fernandez's analysis agrees with what I've been saying, even if his way of expressing it immeasurably surpasses my writing on the topic.

Jeff Burton was first in the commentary section, making another observation that I've shared:

It’s interesting that the left’s talking points on Iraq have followed the same trajectory they did during the Cold War. While the issue was in doubt, the conflict was portrayed as hopeless, unwinnable, and the best course of action was to just stop resisting. After it was over, the story changed to emphasize the inevitable collapse of our enemies and how our actions had little to do with it.

Exactly. Well put, Jeff.

Arming Iraq: LAVs

July 30/08: The US DSCA announced [PDF] Iraq’s formal request for LAV the same kind of amphibious wheeled armored personnel carriers used by the US Marines, as well as associated services and some replacement equipment. When coupled with the recent M1117 armored car, helicopter, and infrastructure requests, the DSCA has announced over $7 billion in contract requests from Iraq’s military over the past week. The volume of these announcements, and their content, strongly suggests an Iraqi military that is making significant strides in organization and responsibilities, and is beginning to order the equipment to match. Time will tell.
(Defense Industry Daily)

"(S)uggests n Iraqi military that is making significant strides in organization and responsibilities."

Good so far. I'll look forward to news regarding air force and supply systems.

St. Petersburg Times, Sept. 2007: End Bush's failed Iraq war

Ah, the wisdom of The St. Peterburg Times' editorial pages.

Less than one full year ago, following the testimony before Congress of Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker, the Times knew that it was time to end Bush's failed war right then and there.

Nothing the Congress and the public heard last week changed the choice we face as a nation - either continue with Bush's ill-defined and open-ended military commitment to Iraq, or begin an orderly and strategic withdrawal of U.S. combat troops in concert with a full-scale diplomatic surge in the region. We strongly come down on the side of those, including a majority of the American people, who believe it's time to start winding down the war and for the United States to put the responsibility for that miserable country's future where it belongs, in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders.

The United States is 4 1/2 years into this disastrous war at a cost so far of nearly 3,800 Americans killed, thousands more horribly wounded and almost $1-trillion in national treasure. Yet, the president refuses to acknowledge that his way has failed. If there were ever any doubts, Bush's speech made it clear that he has no strategy for ending this war, much less winning it.

With the shoe apparently now on the other foot, it remains to be seen whether the Times editorial board will acknowledge that they were flat wrong.

Petraeus and Crocker presented clear evidence that the new strategy was resulting in improvement. Many simply refused to see it. And what about that Bush speech, by the way?

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

(whitehouse.gov)

Hmmm. It is supposedly clear to the editors that Bush has no strategy for ending or winning the war. Yet a scant 12 months later we've clearly got the upper hand in Iraq. Could the Times have been more disconnected from reality? Could Bush's speech have been more accurate?

Bush revealed none of their doubts in his speech to the nation. He maintained that enough military progress has been made to justify continuing his policy, even though by his own standard the troop surge has failed. He told the nation last spring the surge's goal was to give the Iraqi government more time to bring about political reconciliation. That hasn't happened.

Notice the shell game the Times pulled in that paragraph. Under the shell goes the goal of the surge: "give the Iraqi government more time to bring about political reconciliation." Then they lift the shell and the goal has changed: "That (political reconciliation) hasn't happened."

The goal of the surge succeeded overwhelmingly: The Iraqi government received more time to bring about political reconciliation. Success in achieving security gave the negotiating parties confidence that the national government was secure enough to make negotiation a sensible thing to do. There's no use working hard at negotiations with an entity that will become irrelevant in a year or two. The Times ignored the political progress that had been made as of September, and implicitly made the bold prediction that the progress would not be likely to continue as the surge strategy continued.

Not only was it apparent to the editors that the lack of progress meant it was time to get out, it was also apparent to these media sages that the Democratic candidates for president were not forceful enough in calling it a day in Iraq.

When you get past the sound-bites and antiwar rhetoric of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, they are outlining positions that could leave the United States involved in Iraq for years. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York would leave a residual U.S. force to fight terrorism and protect the Kurds in northern Iraq. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has said he would keep some troops in the region to respond to Iraqi genocide and to provide border security. And Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said last week he would withdraw all U.S. combat troops and leave behind a force of unspecified size to battle terrorists, train Iraqi soldiers and protect American interests. They need to be more specific, as do the Republican presidential candidates.

The Times wanted the Democratic Party to share its position in advocating a rapid and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, with a clear political choice come election time.

It is in America's interest to change course in Iraq, the sooner the better. However, that is not likely to happen unless voters send a unequivocal message to Washington in next year's presidential and congressional elections that they want this war to come to an end. As the campaign goes forward, Democrats need to offer clear alternatives to the Bush policy, including a military and diplomatic strategy for managing what everyone acknowledges could be even worse sectarian violence in the aftermath of a U.S. withdrawal.

So. The Times advocated withdrawal even though they expected a worsening of sectarian violence in its aftermath. But of course we need some sort of strategy for "managing" the aftermath. Perhaps a diplomatic surge?

Nothing the Congress and the public heard last week changed the choice we face as a nation - either continue with Bush's ill-defined and open-ended military commitment to Iraq, or begin an orderly and strategic withdrawal of U.S. combat troops in concert with a full-scale diplomatic surge in the region. We strongly come down on the side of those, including a majority of the American people, who believe it's time to start winding down the war and for the United States to put the responsibility for that miserable country's future where it belongs, in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders.

Iraqis have endured miserable conditions for decades, but it is not a miserable country. Bush made the right call. Instead of leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves in dealing with sectarian violence, our great nation adopted appropriate counterinsurgency tactics and coaxed the democratic Iraqi government toward health. And we dealt a terrific blow to Al Qaeda in the process.

The strategy advocated at the Times was irresponsible and foolish.

Reuters caught reporting good news

Of course, it's up to local papers whether they want to run such non-newsworthy stories in the first place. And stuff like this is no doubt best suited for the back pages if it is picked up for publishing at all.

The number of civilians killed in Iraq dropped in July, according to government figures released on Friday.

The declining violence is welcome news for U.S. President George W. Bush, who on Thursday held out the prospect of further troop reductions later this year as he hailed a new "degree of durability" in security gains in the country.

The statistics showed 387 civilians were killed last month, down from 448 in June. The July figure was less than a quarter of the civilian death toll in the same month last year.

(Reuters)

In my next post I'll pick on a St. Petersburg Times editorial from last September that calls the Iraq War a lost cause. Credit to Reuters for actually running a story that admits to the improving picture in Iraq.