Napoléon's 239th Birthday

Napoleon in His Study (1812) Jacques-Louis David (Oil on Canvas)

National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.

I ascend the throne to which the . . . votes of the Senate, the People and the Army have called me, my heart full of the destinies of a Nation which I, from the midst of camps, first proclaimed great.

Napoléon I, 1 December 1804. (From R.M. Johnson, P.J.Haythornthwaite, eds, In the Words of Napoleon, Greenhill, 2002).

Today is the 239th anniversary of the birth of Napoléon I, Emperor of the French, King of Italy.

Born Napoleone (or Nabolione) diBuonaparte, in Ajaccio, Corsica, he just missed being Genoese, as Corsica was only transferred to France in 1768, the year before his birth. Child of a prominent, but retiring local lawyer (Carlo) and a strong-willed mother (Letizia Ramolino) – an amazing woman in her own right, she had the preponderant parental influence on him, Napoleone was sent away, alone, to boarding school at Brienne in France at the age of nine, eventually winning admission to the Ecole Militaire at Paris.

Despite his obvious talent and intelligence, Buonaparte was still a minor noble from a backwater province: he would have done well to have ended his life as an obscure field-grade officer in the Royal Army. But life had other plans. The nobody officer cadet from Ajaccio, poorer than his classmates, laughed at by his fellows for his Italian-accented French and the holes in his shoes, rose out of the chaos of the French Revolution and its wars all the way to the throne.

Today, the (fifth) French Republic has an uneasy official relationship with the memory of Napoléon, and prefers to remember General Bonaparte of the French Republic, and not Emperor Napoléon I, founder of the French Empire. For his own part, Napoléon was at the least ambivalent if not downright uneasy about aspects of the French Revolution, and his orderly mind saw the (first) French Republic as a chaotic madhouse.

The Emperor's extraordinary career would not have been possible without the Revolution, which swept away an entire political system and its ruling elite (which would have barred him from real power), and opened opportunities for achievement, position and power to new men with talent, such as himself. But Napoléon found (among other things) the mob-violence, social change and disorder that came with such wide-spread upheaval profoundly disturbing; and (even though Napoléon was very aware of his debt to the Revolution and to circumstances) as soon as he was able to do so, he set about terminating the Revolution.

As First Consul and then Emperor, Napoléon ended the corruption, chaos and brigandage of the French Revolution and restored order, financial sanity and religion. Napoléon correctly divined that the French missed the monarchy destroyed by the Revolution, and restored it, to popular acclaim, in the person of himself. His choice of the title: "Emperor of the French" drew on both the legacy of the Holy Roman Empire, and the earlier Rome of the Caesars which Napoléon and many of his contemporaries so greatly admired. The Pope himself came from Rome to preside at his coronation, at Notre Dame de Paris, 2 December 1804.

Napoléon is justly famous as a soldier, but he was a far greater ruler than he was a general. The Emperor proved to be one of the greatest lawgivers in history, and the modern French state is his creation. Napoléon's laws and administrative system still govern France today, and have had worldwide influence, as far afield as the United States and Japan. Napoléon was a great builder, and filled the country with universities, libraries, roads and other useful public works. The French educational system, and those of several other European countries were his creations.

Napoléon is mostly remembered for his wars. He made his reputation as a general in the wars of the French Revolution, and he inherited responsibility for the wars when he seized power from the corrupt French Republic in November of 1799. As soon as was diplomatically possible, he concluded a series of advantageous peace treaties, culminating in peace with Great Britain in March of 1802.

Peace was short-lived, however, and France and Britain, along with much of the rest of Europe, were soon at war again, on and off, from 1803 forward. Five great victories by Napoléon: Austerlitz (1805), over Austria; Jena (1806), over Prussia; Eylau and Friedland (1807), over Russia and Prussia; and Wagram (1809), over Austria again -- cemented French dominance of central and western Europe. Napoléon’s siblings were given thrones.

The Corsican gunner from Ajaccio took as a second wife a Habsburg Archduchess (Marie Louise), and their child was a King from the moment of his birth. “Roll up that map of Europe” said British Prime Minister William Pitt, after Austerlitz, “it will not be needed again in our time.”

But Napoléon was unable to consolidate his rule. Despite his victories in central Europe, his greatest enemy, Britain, remained, implacable and untouchable across the English Channel, always able to field good little armies, and provide financial support to his enemies. In the west, a guerrilla war in Spain bled Napoléon's armies; although he probably would have prevailed on this front had central Europe remained quiet. But on the east, Russia, although ostensibly an ally, more or less openly subverted Napoléon's attempts to shut British commerce out of the continent and otherwise generally intrigued with Napoléon's covert and overt enemies.

The Emperor overreached himself trying to resolve this latter problem, by invading Russia, in 1812. The space, logistical and communications problems were insoluble for Napoléon's pre-industrial military machine, and the French were beaten even before they reached Moscow. The retreat from Russia led eventually to defeat, the collapse of the Empire, exile and a lonely death on St. Helena in the South Atlantic. Still, after the fall of his regime in 1815, his successors in France found things in such good order that little actually changed, beyond the names on the office doors.

In today's more republican, egalitarian and pacifist times he is often blamed for the bloody wars of his era, but he did not start most of them (the Russian and Spanish wars being the great exceptions), although he certainly took advantage of the opportunities they presented for the aggrandizement of his empire. Greatest general of his age, and possibly ever, Napoléon's meteoric political and military career, and all of the monumental change which came in its train, was effectively finished by the time he was 45. Like Julius Caesar, the historical personality he most resembles, Napoléon transcended mere mortal existence and passed into legend.

A Bad Hand in Georgia

For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences - either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us - and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

The Athenians (i.e. Alcibiades), speaking to the Melian ambassadors (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book 5, Chapter 17 ("Sixteenth Year of the War - The Melian Conference - Fate of Melos" [a/k/a "The Melian Dialogue"]).

Well, there's one theory shot to pieces. (See last post).

The Russians are sitting in Poti and in Gori, apparently making preparations to at least partially withdraw, and appear to be wrecking Georgia's infrastructure before they leave. I wonder if the Russians will claim they've "withdrawn" but leave South Ossetian and Abkhazian "volunteers"(Russian soldiers with different insignia) in place until Georgia concedes independence to these places. In their place, I certainly would.

The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has said Georgia's territorial integrity is a "dead issue" and that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not going to be forced back into Georgia. His position makes better sense than the converse Euro-American position, since it reflects the facts on the ground. The winner gets to call the tune; and, sorry, but the Georgians, Americans and Euros are not in that column.

If President Bush wants to order the Russians out of Georgia and speak up for Georgian territorial integrity without rendering himself ridiculous, than he needs something more to threaten the Russians with than harsh language. At the moment, the less President Bush says about what the Russians should do, the better. The military facts do not warrant his making any demands on them whatever.

The "humanitarian aid" to Tbilisi in C-17's is a step in the direction of giving the Russians something to think about. But is this wise? It seems a couple days late and a few batteries of artillery short. Hopefully the President and his advisers know what they're planning to do if the aircraft are fired upon. I don't think the Russians are seeking a conflict with us. . .they had better not be, for their sakes. But accidents have been known to happen. Personally, I feel badly for Georgia, but it is not worth a war to the United States.

It now seems probable that there was a massive failure of intelligence and imagination on the part of the Americans and Georgians leading up to this conflict. We will no doubt learn more about that in the months ahead. But it is now time to liquidate a bad position, and encourage the Georgians to negotiate the best exit from this position possible.

Georgia, or Iran?

The world is agog this morning that Russia is (gasp!) violating a supposed truce with the Georgians. If Russian armor was not in Gori two days ago, AP's story sure indicates that it is this morning. The Russians act like they're going to Tbilisi. (See the map from my 11 August post).

In the west, the Abkhazia separatists, presumably backed by elements of the Russian armored column that was in or by Senski two days ago, are moving too. A "separatist official," speaking of Abkhazia's move into Georgian territory, says that "the border [that is, the Georgia/Abkhazia border] has been along this river for 1,000 years" and that Georgia would have to accept the "new border" and that the Georgian Army had received "American training in running away." I wonder what "river" this official is talking about as the "border"? The Enguri, or the Rioni and its tributaries, much further south?

The Abkhazian official raises a good question: where is the Georgian Army? Presumably it's preparing to defend Tbilisi, to the southeast of Gori.

What appears to have happened is that the Russians stopped for a day, probably to move up fuel supplies; give the Georgians time to smell the coffee, crawl and throw President Saakashavili out (as the Russians have demanded); and, to gauge the reaction to events so far on the part of the Americans and the Europeans. Now, with the tanks refueled, the Georgians intransigent and the Americans uninterested, the tanks are moving south again.

In a Stratfor essay entitled "The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power" George Friedman observes, inter alia:

The United States is Georgia's closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia's mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

Interestingly, Richard Fernandez (a/k/a Wretchard), over at Belmont Club, today notes a New York Times story that "long before there was any allegation that the Georgians had entered South Ossetia, the Russian cyberwar apparatus began their campaign against Tbilisi. . ."

Clearly, there was plenty of evidence that should have clued-in the Georgians -- but especially the Americans -- that the Russians were coming. At the very minimum, it should have been clear to all sentient life-forms in possession of such intelligence that the Russians were not playing around, or going to tolerate any playing around, on the South Ossetia issue. Friedman adds up the implications:

This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but -- along with the Georgians -- miscalculated Russia's intentions. The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

Sorry, but this just does not add up to me. I simply cannot see how (1) the United States could have missed the buildup of Russian forces around Vladikavkaz, north of the Caucasus; or in Abkhazia. Armored columns are active on both the western and eastern Georgian fronts. This means substantial fuel and supply dumps, big concentrations of vehicles, including tankers; almost certainly significantly increased activity in Russian rail yards in the south, particularly at Vladikavkaz, Stavropol and Prokhiadnyy; plus turbulence in Ground Forces units throughout western Russia, as other units were stripped to provide equipment and manpower fillers for units tapped for the southern campaign. The naval movements discussed in the press would have required significant preparation also.

Moreover, I cannot fathom how (2) anyone could miss the significance of Russian cyber-activity against Georgia, alluded to in the Times story. Moreover, (3) both (1) and (2) would have generated a significant amount of Russian communications traffic, that would have been picked up by the Americans. Communications intelligence has always, always been an American high card. Additionally, according to the Times (London), British intelligence was on the case, and expected the war "weeks ago." Surely London shared with Washington, at least on this matter.

The raw intelligence, and everything else, surely makes it clear that the Russians were coming, and so, finally, (4) I simply cannot credit that the processing of the raw intelligence, the analysis, was that far off the mark either. So I don't credit either of Dr. Friedman's possibilities -- failures in intelligence gathering, or analysis.

There's a third possibility, alluded to in passing in the Stratfor piece:

The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.

Therefore, the United States has a problem -- it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran. . .

(bolded emphasis supplied)

Lets roll with this one a little further. Suppose, suppose, just for a minute, that US decision makers had all of this information. Just maybe, the dog didn't bark?

Georgia and the Caucasus are, as Dr. Friedman indicated, second-order problems for the United States. Not so Iran! The United States has no more vital foreign policy objective in the present era than maintaining its hegemony in the Persian Gulf, strengthening pro-US client regimes west of Iran (Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan), and allies (Israel); and also preventing Iran from either getting a nuclear weapon or otherwise threatening America or its clients.

Things seem to be moving towards a showdown with Iran. Since late 2007, Bush has embraced the European method of working through the diplomats to try to stop Iranian nuclear development. Iran hasn't budged. All evidence shows that Iran is bound and determined to continue down the nuclear road, and that Iran fully intends to produce a weapon. The desire to have a nuclear capability reflects a broad national consensus, even among the many Iranians who hate the present regime. They are not going to be talked out of it.

The Israelis are alarmed, and apparently considering their military options. Are the Americans, more than we perhaps understand, doing the same?

So, Iran is and has to be America's most serious concern at present. For the Russians, matters are different. For the long run, they probably are not happy at the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons, but they very much resent the unipolar world the Americans think that they rule, and want to recover their influence and position in the "near abroad" -- the states comprising the former Soviet Union. For Russia, the Caucasus, and Georgia, are first order concerns. Russia has wanted to control the Caucasus since Peter the Great. Iran, for the present, is a distinctly second-order problem for them, but the Russians are certainly not unhappy to see the Americans embroiled in the Persian Gulf.

Suppose, for a moment that the Russians, implicitly or explicitly, have offered the Americans a quid pro quo. Is it possible that Moscow has told Washington that it might be willing to take a hands-off attitude towards whatever the Americans wind up doing in the Persian Gulf, if the US avoids helping Georgia too much in the Caucasus?

I don't say that such a deal has occurred. But it makes too much sense not to consider the possibility. We will have to wait and observe the Russian attitude when the Iranian pot boils.

A Question of Bargaining Chips

The Russians are insisting that the Georgian President, Mr. Mikheil Saakashvili, "must go." The Foreign Minister, Mr. Sergei Lavrov, also says that Moscow will not talk to Mr. Saakashvili..

The US Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, says that this demand (reiterated Sunday by the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin), is "unacceptable and crosses a red line."

Of course, I agree with Ambassador Khalilzad that this is outrageous, but I would like to know how he proposes to make the Russian demands unacceptable? With the Russians sitting on Georgia's main communications artery, and the Georgians without the ability to drive them off, or real help from Georgia's US quasi-ally; the Russians are in a good position to get what they are demanding. The military facts on the ground do not entitle the US or the Georgians, however "reasonable" and "equitable" their position may appear -- to insist on anything.

I could wish matters were otherwise, but without means to put pressure on the Russians, or, quite frankly, any manifestation of will by the US to do so -- Ambassador Khalilzad should moderate his tone and try to help extract the best terms for the Georgians from this mess that he can. If the US government finds a way to squeeze on Russia, I'll be the first to support a harder line. Find some chips, Ambassador.

Georgia Evening Roundup

The Times (London) reports the Georgian Land Forces pulled out of Gori in disarray. Presumably the troops that fled do not include the Georgian battalions being shuttled in by the US from Iraq -- those are probably the best units the Georgians have. But with the main east-west highway and rail links cut in two places; the heartland and capital isolated from the country's ports; and the Georgians unable to interdict the Russian supply routes over the Caucasus passes, the game is pretty near up.

The New York Times reports at least some Russians in Senaki (see my earlier post), although the Russian and Georgian governments both say that the Russian troops pulled back from that place. The Russian commander in Abkhazia is demanding that Georgian forces near the Abkhazia borders disarm.

The New York Times piece also says that Russia has named its terms: the Foreign Ministry says that Georgia must pull its troops out of South Ossetia and enter an agreement renouncing the use of force against that territory. The Georgians would be well-advised to accept those terms, and be lucky to get them.

Probably, however, the Russians are going to try to add some more, possibly unwritten terms to any deal -- including the political demise of President Saakashvili, and an end to Georgian attempts to cozy up to NATO and the US. The Russians will want the US trainers assisting the Georgian military to leave. The Russian Foreign Ministry, so far, is not accepting Georgia offers of a cease fire.

Georgia has lost. The question now is what this misadventure is going to cost. If Georgia is going to get away with nothing more than definitively loosing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the US and Europe are going to have to assert themselves a little, and lay down some red lines.

Georgia In Trouble

AP reports that Russian mechanized forces have seized a "base" in Senaki, Georgia, about twenty miles from the Georgian Black Sea port of Poti. The base (whatever kind it might be) is much, much less important than where Senaki is.

Have a look at the splendid map, above (kedged off of Belmont Club). If the report is correct, and the Russian forces are in Senaki in force, they have cut off one of Georgia’s two rail links to its Black Sea Ports – they are sitting directly on the T'bilisi-Poti line. Moreover, the town of Samtredia is about fifteen miles further southeast. Two river crossings will be required, but presumably the Russian Ground Forces can find the requisite engineers and pontoons.

Moreover, Samtredia is just within range of the 152mm self-propelled guns (there are several types) which accompany Russian mechanized formations, and some types of Russian rocket artillery. Samtredia is important because it contains the other important rail-link in western Georgia – to Batumi – the country’s other major Black Sea port. All the Russians need to do is make the line economically unusable, not knock it out entirely.

I find it interesting that the Russians have managed to advance in the west, down the road from Och'amch'ire (in Abkhazia) so quickly. Possibly Georgian forces in that area are thinned out, perhaps to support the front towards Ossetia, or guarding the ports from descents by sea.

Further, this western advance by the Russians is more evidence, if such were needed, that a massive intelligence failure has occured -- both on the Georgian side, and on the part of Georgia's patron, the United States. The AP report indicates that the troops in Senaki are mechanized troops, so it is unlikely they came to Abkhazia by sea. Given the poor state of readiness of most of the Russian military, and the isolated nature of the axis of advance from Abkhazia (on the south side of some very rough mountains, traversable by bad roads) this is further indication that this campaign was set up well in advance by the Russians. Mechanized columns are voracious drinkers of fuel and users of tons of other supplies. Fuel and consumables would have to be moved in and dumped far in advance, and units assembled. How have the Georgians (and their American friends) been caught so obviously flat-footed?

In any event, depending on how close Russian forces are to Gori (Stalin’s birthplace), through which the rail links to Bat’umi and Poti pass, Georgia may already be strategically cut in two, so the concern over the western ports may well be academic. If the Georgians cannot get the Russians out of rocket and artillery range of the railroad (and I find this unlikely), then they are finished, and must sue for peace on whatever terms they can get, now.

Until Georgia can obtain terms...the attitude of the Armenians and Azerbajanis, sitting on Georgia's last un-interdicted rail links to the outside world (south and east of T'bilisi) will become increasingly important.

UPDATE: (12:15 p.m.). AP reports that the Georgian government claims that Gori has fallen to the Russians. This is a clue to where the missing Georgian forces in the west were (see above) -- probably fighting for Gori.

An Obama Salute?

The Obamagruss? U.S. News reports that the Obama people have their own salute, or so it appears. Admittedly this is not the work of the campaign, per se, but of a "creative agency" called "The Loyalty, Inc." They want to have 75,000 people at his nomination screaming their allegiance and making the Obama salute, which symbolizes "new hope" and "hands clasped in acceptance of responsibility for our future."

First there was a seal, then they took the big flag off the airplane, to replace it with the Obama O, now there's a salute? What's next, uniforms (with Obama O armbands) and a song? I guess nobody's used the Horst-Wessel-Lied in awhile, although I think Billy Bragg's version of the Internationale is more their speed.

I can't honestly determine if these people are just historical illiterates with no knowledge of totalitarian movements and their use of salutes, symbols, songs and flags; or if, on the contrary, these people really do know what they're doing, and are after more than an election. I repeat my question of several days ago. What is Obama really running for?

(Hat tip: American Power).

Russia and Georgia

Russia has intervened directly in favor of secessionist rebels in the Georgian region of South Ossetia (center of map). The Russians have always helped and supported the secessionists, in both South Ossetia and in Abkhazia (top left map). In 1995, both regions (with Moscow's connivance) achieved de facto if not de jure independence from Georgia, and Russian "peacekeepers" have been in the area since at least that time.

Georgia has never given up trying to reintegrate both regions, and Georgian military forces earlier this week occupied the secessionist capital at Tskhinvali (see map), and clamed the city had been "freed." The Georgian President, Mr. Mikheil Saakashvili, says that Russian Ground Forces then crossed the border. The Georgians claim the force includes armor (the Reuters story says "150 tanks" plus APC's and other vehicles), and that Georigan military airfields around their capital Tbilisi (center right on the map) have been bombed. Russian news agencies claim that a Russian armored column has moved over the border. The Georgians claim to have shot down two Russian aircraft.

Apparently shelling from heavy guns is on-going near Tskhinvali. Owners of the guns unknown.

Unlike the United States, the Russians are very careful about giving out too much order-of-battle information, so any information has to be taken with a box or two of salt. Still, here is what is publicly available about Russian Ground Forces in the Caucasus/Transcaucasus region.

Georgia borders the Russian North Caucasus Military District. This military district probably has most of the combat-capable ground units in the Russian Ground Forces, simply because it is tasked with ongoing Russian operations in Russia's own breakaway Chechnya region. Supposedly, it has a number of mountain-warfare capable units.

Just across the Georgia border, in North Ossetia, is the Russian Ground Forces 58th Army (wich is subordinate to the North Caucasus MD, and is its principal Ground Forces unit. The principal maneuver unit in this army is the 19th Motor Rifle Division, which has three Motor-Rifle [infantry] regiments, a separate tank regiment [90-100 tanks, all up] and a self-propelled artillery regiment (big guns on tracked vehicles).

Additionally, 58th Army has at least three subordinate separate motor rifle brigades or regiments (maneuver elements about a third a size of the 19th MRD at full strength). However, the Russian Ground forces are not the Soviet Ground Forces, and they do not possess the wealth of personal and material of similar units in Soviet times. Most units are cadres -- that is, greatly below their full notional strength, and are filled-out with additional troops and equipment when needed.

Although there are at least two other MRD's in the North Caucasus MD, in addition to substantial Interior Ministry paramilitary units, much of what's there (including 58th Army) have commitments in Chechnya. In all probability, if a major intervention in Georgia is seriously contemplated, and continues for any length of time, other forces will be required.

Georgia's land forces are about 20,000 strong, comprising four infantry brigades and supporting units. Two additional brigades are supposed to be raised by 2010. The Georgia Land Forces have enjoyed good relations with the US military (including joint exercises and training) and sent forces to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. (Wretchard at Belmont Club has a good discussion of US/Georgia military relations, and this new crisis, here). Georgia can probably defend itself against anything short of a full-scale invasion, simply because of geography, but if the Russians are determined, Georgia is in trouble.

Georgia is not part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but has a "partnership for peace" with NATO, whatever that might mean.

What appears to have happened today is that Georgia decided that it would be able to bring separatist South Ossetia back under its control without Russian objection. Georgia's calculation appears to have been erroneous. Probably, the Russians implemented standing plans for their own military response in the event Georgia tried this.

The decision to execute the plan would go all the way to Moscow, to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Medvedev and Putin appear to think they have a green light to move troops openly into a sovereign state that has relations with NATO; or that NATO (meaning the US) is too busy elsewhere to really object, much. Why the Russians might think that should cause some other people to think a little bit. . .

Alliance of Convenience

Lenin: The Tsar should have had your secret police. My party will study your methods.

German Consul: They [the reports] fail to mention your sense of humor.

Lenin: It gets even funnier: I want to get to Petersburg.You want to get to Paris.

German Consul: It's outrageous! We are here in Zurich, and if I understand you, you want the German government, which is at war with Russia, to take you across Germany to Sweden, because you can get to Russia from there?

Lenin: I'm offering to stop the war.

German Consul: (scoffing) Oh, I didn't know you had such authority.

Lenin: If there were a Bolshevik government in Russia, we'd immediately make peace with Germany. Then how many divisions could you send to the western front?

German Consul: And now you're asking me for classified information. You know my government has locked up more Bolsheviks than anyone else? How can you expect us, to help you make a revolution? You have no sense of proportion!

Lenin: All I'm interested in is power in Russia, and it's lying there on the streets waiting to be picked up. . .

German Consul: I see your jokes are very subtle. A Marxist wants to use the Kaiser. And perhaps the Kaiser can use a Marxist.

Curd Jürgens as "The German Consul" and Michael Bryant as "Lenin" in Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) (Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner; Screenplay by James Goldman and Edward Bond, from a book by Robert K. Massie)

Karen Tumulty, writing in Time, asks hopefully, fearfully, "Have the Clintons gotten over it?"

Oh, one surely hopes not.

The White House awaits you in four years, Senator Clinton, but the road to glory cannot be travelled with St. Barack upon it. If Obama wins, you're history, writing your has-been memoirs about what might-have-been and blaming Bill that it did not come out differently. But you knew that.

All kinds of rumors are circulating that you want your delegates "heard" at the convention. Maybe that you even want a floor vote on the nomination? I doubt you're going to do that, unless you think it certain that St. Barack is a gone gosling. He's lost some tail-feathers, but he's not weakened enough for you to expose yourself by forcing a vote, not yet. But some chaos is not all bad.

Perhaps all the noise is the sound of you making one last effort to gain the number two spot? Maybe. But I think you agree with me and John Nance Garner that on the terms you could get it, the position is "not worth a bucket of warm piss." Still, offering you the post would be a counsel of desperation for Obama: it would be too easy for you to connive at his defeat from within. If Obama is fool enough to give it to you, and he still wins, he'll watch his back, lock you up in the Naval Observatory, trot you out for the odd funeral, and make it his business to ensure your political future after him is oblivion. No matter how you look at it, his win is your loss.

I think you're probably smart enough to push for the position, enough to be noticed, and to demonstrate the viability of your power base; all the while being enough of a bother to ensure that you don't receive an offer, and to encourage a rookie's tendency to do something stupid to offend your supporters. For his part, Obama must consider you, but not give you the post, in such a manner that he doesn't appear a churl rejecting you. Hard to bring off. You win either way: if he loses it's not (obviously) your doing. If he wins, you still have supporters certain you were short-changed, which, combined with your seat in the Senate, is something of a base.

Ms. Tumulty reports that you're "skeptical" that St. Barack can win in the fall. Your skepticism is well-founded, but it would be even more well-founded, and much in your interest, if you were to give the New Messiah, and history, a little bit of an unobtrusive shove.

So, you don't like Republicans and conservatives? Well, the distaste is mutual of course, but what of it? Tomorrow we can have our quarrel, and we will see whose political head winds up over the barn door. But today, our interests, and those of the country, happily coincide, and on that basis we can surely understand each other. How about it? Looks like a win-win, from here, for the moment. If the Marxists can use the Kaiser, maybe the Kaiser can use a Marxist?

Iran and Military Options

There is a flurry of new reports this week that Israel is considering its military options against Iran and its nuclear program. Links to some reports and a good general discussion are set out by Spook at In from the Cold.

Count me a skeptic about the Israelis pursuing a military option. The ranges are long, the targets too dispersed and probably hardened. Absent the use of nuclear weapons (unthinkable without an actual Iranian attack on Israel) I'm not sure the Israelis have the weight to do enough damage to Iran or its program (much less killing the scientists and the institutions that give the Persians the capability) to justify the political problems created by such an action.

I think similar considerations (politically at least) would hobble a US effort.

The Iranians have essentially won this hand. If Iran wants nuclear devices, there is not a usable military option available to stop them at the moment. The only way they can lose at this point is by being over-truculent and forcing the outside world's hand. However, the regime is sailing very close to the wind, and there is a strong possibility that the Mullahs and "Mad Jad" Ahmadinejad could bluster themselves into a real war by mistake.

The mullahs' weakness is that they need political confrontation with America and the west (at least on this issue) for much the same reasons that Chavez in Venezuela does. The mullahs have made such a hopeless mess, economically, spiritually and politically, of Iran that a foreign threat is imperative to keep the regime out of serious trouble. For the mullahs (and us) the problem is that the consequences of the confrontation ever becoming violent cannot adequately be predicted: a few raids would no doubt unite the public behind the regime; but if the world becomes afraid enough, a real war could destroy both them and their country.

The desire for nuclear power and nuclear weapons unites both the regime and its enemies. Halting Iranian nuclear programs politically is simply unlikely to occur. The Iranian nuclear program is dangerous not for itself, but because the mullah regime is dangerous, and wants to overturn the political order of the Gulf region, and beyond.

Change the issue a little. The Iranian nuclear program is the wrong target. The Iranian regime, which is both unpopular and criminal -- and more vulnerable politically than the nuclear program -- is the right one.

Obama Wants to Get Rid of Oil

Senator Obama, speaking to a crowd in Youngstown, Ohio, says that “for the sake of our economy, our security and the future of our planet, we must end the age of oil in our time.”

“The future of our planet”?

“End the age of oil”?

What is Senator Obama really running for ? The President of the United States is not the steward of the future of our planet, but a public official entrusted with the state business of the United States of America, and with its prosperity, power, safety and aggrandizement. Obama’s concern seems less with the United States -- because the United States holds only a part of his loyalty. After all, in Berlin, the Senator told a German crowd that he was a “proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.” I always thought that American Presidents were for the United States, only, first, last and always.

The President of the United States does not have the power to “end the age of oil.” He is not a scientist, or a miracle-worker or a conjurer. The “age of oil” will be ended when economic, commercial and physical realities require it to be ended, and not before.

Obama’s demand that the “age of oil” end seems to have less to do with the high energy and gasoline prices that are hurting the economy generally, and the pocketbooks of voters in particular. Yesterday he told us the US could produce enough “renewable energy” within ten years to replace all US imports of Middle Eastern oil. Renewable is what Obama’s concerned about. Everything we know about Obama, and everything he says tells us that he cares nothing about Americans enjoying access to cheap, plentiful energy, and everything about our carbon emissions and how much we cut back.

Maybe we can produce enough “renewable energy” to replace Middle Eastern oil imports, but, economically this is hardly a relevant question. It does not matter, economically at least, that the energy is “renewable.” Economically speaking, all that matters is that energy sources be commercially useful and reasonably secure. As long as there are cheaper sources of oil, coal, nuclear or other non-renewable resources around, the money (like water seeking its own level) will gravitate and flow to these sources , and disdain Obama’s precious “renewable” energy.

Of course, we could reach his goal of replacing oil with renewable sources by the government’s forcing it to happen. Of course, it might well economically break us. Planned economies do not historically work out too well (see Soviet Union, fall of). Meanwhile, what will the rest of the world be doing? Oh, Obama's fellow world citizens in Europe will be writing their scholarly papers all the while still-complaining about the cowboy Americans. But I guarantee you the Chinese and Indians aren't going to be worrying about carbon footprints and emissions mandates.

The most disturbing element to the Obama phenomenon right along has been the religious tone of his pronouncements; the millenarian thrust of his huge aspirations. Beware Utopians with plans. Obama does not have the power to “end the age of oil” or secure “the future of our planet.” But as President he would certainly have the power and the means to compel Americans to ignore what’s in our financial and commercial interests, and to use the state’s power to dragoon us all into his Global Warming religion’s crusade to save the planet and build the New Jerusalem to his specifications. Obama the post-nationalist, transnational citizen of the world's going to make you do it -- like it or not. Do you doubt it?

Edouard

Tropical Storm Edouard is supposed to be paying a visit to Cuidad El Jefe this morning. So far, except for a little rain, it's been a bust, Edouard has gotten us to clean up our yards and stay off the roads, but he's stiffed us on the drinks. We sure need the rain, although he can keep the hot air.

(2:24 p.m. local). It appears that folks to the north of El Jefe's palace have received a bit more rain and some wind. A nice steady rain has fallen here through the day.

Obama Throws Planet Pelosi Under the Bus

Well, St. Barack has flip-flopped on offshore drilling. Now he says he's for it, saying that he could support it as long as it's part of a "comprehensive energy policy" and was a "careful well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage."

If he's serious, that's plain good sense, and shows that Obama has a nodding acquaintance with reality when it's politically imperative for him to do so.

Wonder how Nancy "Save the Planet" Pelosi's going to feel about St. Barack throwing her under the bus? Getting awful crowded under there.

Why Is the Floor Moving ?

Friend T had SWMBO and I over for drinks and snacks whilst the Heir and T's daughter went swimming. We had a wonderful time, but I don't think I will feel the need to even look in the direction of red wine anytime soon.

Unblocked

Blogger says they had a spambot bug, which evidently resulted in this and other blogs being locked by Blogger's automated spambots yesterday. Evidently El Jefe's paranoia was unjustified, and those responsible will be sent for re-education at once.

He's Ordered His Horse...

And the Oval Office furniture. . .

St. Barack and the Titanic

Over at American Power blog, Professor Douglas calls attention to send-ups of St. Barack's "victory tour" in the Washington Post and in USA Today. The Sainted One's "presumptuous arrogance" Professor Douglas correctly notes, could lead to a stunning loss. Well, from the Professor's pen to God's pad, let's hope. In this same vein, commenter (and blogger) "Educated Shoprat" notes that: "They said that 'God Himself couldn't sink the Titanic' but down she went. Hubris is the enemy of the great, near-great, and self-deluded."

Maybe, but I dunno. . .

If St. Barack had been on Titanic, it would have been a totally different tale. First, St. Barack would have equalized the wealth of first class and steerage, thus assuring all that the voyage across the icy cold North Atlantic was total Nirvana for the poor immigrants seeking a better life in the New World (room for lots and lots more with St. Barack on board); and a wonderful happy crossing for even the ship's rats.

Then, the Great One would have used his tough presidential diplomacy to influence Captain Smith to ignore the evil demands of J. Bruce Ismay (symbol of the corporate greed fostered by Republicans) to go faster than a fuel-efficient 55 mph. The Man of Hope would have further prevailed on Captain Smith to reverse the failed lookout policies of the Bush administration, and to pay his lookouts a fair Union wage rather than outsourcing their work to China.

Once the ship hit the iceberg, St. Barack would have immediately implemented allocation of lifeboat space based on the best affirmative action principles. He would have convened earnest and determined academic study groups seeking input from all parts of the community to prepare a thesis on the best, fairest, most PC way to allocate lifeboat space, to ensure that the contributions of the poor, passengers of color, the differently-abled, and those of diverse sexual preferences were taken into account. (The target date for completion of the study would be mid-1913).

In the meantime, St. Barack's friend, Reverend Wright, could sermonize the passengers on the sins of America, leading them in rousing renditions of Nearer My God to Thee, St. Barack and the Internationale. Meanwhile, down in steerage, St. Barack's other pal, Bill Ayers, would be busily forming SDS ("Steerage for a Democratic Society") and planning the revolution against the first class passengers. Michelle's there too, inspiring the crew manning the pumps to truly Stakhanovite efforts: "Barack . . .will require you to work. . . come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

With St. Barack aboard, the Titanic passengers have really Got Hope. On the boat deck, St. Barack gives up waiting on the blue-ribbon academic panel to come up with a lifeboat-allocation plan, reverse the rotation of the world, stop the Iranian nukes, and make the crops grow. He puts his "community organizer" persona into overdrive, leading the crew in rhythmic chants of "Yes We Can ! Yes We Can !" Inspired, the crew swings into action, patches the hole in Titanic and (powered by hot air from MoveOn.org) steams that puppy right into New York, running over Hillary Clinton as the ship makes port.

St. Barack saves the ship, and gets Kate Winslet (plus the "Heart of the Ocean" for good measure). Titanic, refitted, is renamed St Barack's Hope and given a new figurehead, that says "Vero possumus" and looks suspiciously like a presidential seal. A grateful world yawns, and gives St. Barack the keys to the White House, the Vatican and the Executive Washroom. Savior Barack is packed right off on a European tour, where Katie Couric and the world media swoon and go ga-ga as the Sainted One makes World Peace Surpassing All Understanding, for All Time to Come. . .

Exeunt Olmert

Ehud Olmert is stepping down as Israeli Prime Minister, as soon as his Kadina Party picks a new leader. Not before time: he made a hash of the Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006. Mr. Olmert's government dithered over its response to Hezbollah's rocket and prisoner-grab challenge; squandered an opportunity to crush Hezbollah with Israeli ground troops: opting to try to do the job on the cheap with air power and long range guns. The Olmert government turned to its ground option much too late, with much too little, when diplomatic time had expired.

Israel got all the bad press attendant on using any of its military options and suffered a major loss of military and diplomatic prestige. The war revealed major problems with the Israeli military system, but Israel was certainly strong enough to win in the field. That she did not was largely the fault of the national leadership -- in particular Mr. Olmert.

No doubt some caretaker Prime Minister will follow, but whenever the Israelis have elections. . . keep an eye on Benjamin Netanyahu. If he were a stock, he'd be a good buy about now.

Our Unserious Government

Despite staggeringly high oil prices, and the fact that we import nearly 70 percent of our oil from less than stable parts of the world, there is still no move by Congress to approve opening more of the continental shelf to oil drilling. Meanwhile, Fiscal Year 2009's US government budget deficit is going to break records at $482 billion dollars. That's not counting costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't worry, you, your kids, grandkids and their grandchildren's children will be paying.

Strategic thinking in Washington is on holiday. With the cancellation of most of the Zumwalt-class destroyer project (DDG-1000), the Navy's shipbuilding program is in disarray. Perhaps some disarray is justified: the Navy never seemed to know exactly what it wanted in these 14,000-ton "destroyers" that were as big as cruisers and as expensive as battleships. While this is going on, Congress is funding VIP "comfort pallets" in USAF aircraft so that flag officers and (more importantly) Congress-persons can travel around the world the cushy way. Hey, they need to be able to travel, since President-Faith Healer Obama, now on his victory tour, is a citizen of the world.

Oh, and there's a war on.

But don't worry, citizens. True, we're broke; our kids are going to be strapped to the eyes; regular unleaded is about $4.00 a gallon; and the vegetables, bread and milk you can buy will just about fit in the same space in your wallet formerly occupied by the worthless dollars you bought them with.

Still, there are glad tidings -- your Congress is on the case: yesterday the House of Representatives apologized for slavery (dead 140 years) and Jim Crow. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee, its 20 Democrats anyway (voting along party lines of course) wants to cite Karl Rove for contempt of Congress.

Dolts. Fools. Useless nincompoops. Incompetents. (Add expletives here). Contempt of Congress is a badge of honor.

The Sainted One Goes Forth

A reading from the Book of Obama, the Light-Bringer to the world. . .

What if Obama Loses?

Wretchard, over at Belmont Club, has a very interesting piece today concerning, inter alia, the apprehensions of some of the brighter denizens of Big Media about the intentions of the political monster they have built. But Wretchard's most arresting thought on our coming Leader is how he is:

. . .no longer just running for President but striding forward to claim his destiny. Once the expectation of an Obama victory exceeds a certain point an actual electoral defeat would cause psychological damage to the trust mechanisms of [the] political system, like a long announced celebration party or holiday that unaccountably never happens. He’s a runaway. .

Now there's an interesting question. As I said the other day, it's like the media has held its election, and Obama has already won. In all but name, he is the President-Elect. We're just waiting till he takes office.

What if, in spite of all expectations, that turns out not to be true ? What if Destiny is denied; the hopes and expectations of right-thinging people all over the world dashed and Leader St. Barack actually loses come November? The odds of that look vanishingly small, at least at first blush. . .but the polls have this race looking tighter than the tone of the media coverage says it should.

So what if it happens? What if Obama is overexposed, and ordinary people, considering Obama, have the temerity, the pure gall to ignore the propaganda and what they're being told the world wants and decide that No. He. Can't? What if the bubble bursts?

Can the political system survive the anger of so many right-thinking people denied their Leader; their new Kennedy; their Messiah? Would the New Class that has taken over the Democratic Party and that constitutes the media and information elites that now rule us, take the defiance, the sacrilege and impudence of flyover country lying down?

I grant you that it's unlikely to happen. . .but it would be such fun if it did.

Iraq Today If Obama Had Gotten His Way

Comment is simply superfluous. . .I agree completely. (Hat tip: Confederate Yankee).

Didn't You Hear? Obama's Already President

Drudge reports today that the New York Times has rejected John McCain's proposed op-ed column -- just a week after it gave space on the op-ed page, gratis, to St. Barack of Obama. According to the Drudge piece, the Times op-ed editor says McCain's offering is deficient because it des not "mirror" Barack the Leader's column.

Hmmm, too bad we can't get all the Lefties to hold their breath waiting for Nancy Pelosi to denounce the one-sidedness of the Times editorial page the way she does that of talk radio. . .

Meanwhile, the Sainted Leader's trip abroad has occasioned what the Financial Times (and probably everybody else) calls a "media frenzy" in contrast to the "subdued coverage" of Senator McCain's campaign. We are further informed this morning that the Iraqi government and Obama agree on when US troops should leave Iraq. And as if that were not enough, Obama has said on CBS's Face the Nation (as reported in Dan Balz's Washington Post campaign blog): "The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like [Afghan] President Karzai or [Iraqi] Prime Minister Maliki or [French] President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years." (italics in original)

Gee, last I heard, the 22nd Amendment said you could be President for eight years, tops. I'm sure St. Barack will fix this in his first term.

Then again, maybe he won't. Why would he have to? The media's so in the tank for this guy, why are we even bothering with an election? As far as the press and right-thinking people are concerned, St. Barack is already the President-Elect, and we're all just sitting around marking time till he takes the throne next January. We don't need to have an election -- the media, which has given up reporting the news and gone full time into making it, is having the election for us, and if we don't vote the right way come November, the chattering classes will just up and elect themselves a new people.

Moreover, as far as these people are concerned, he can be President for Life if he wants. I'm not so sure I'd bet against him dealing with Sarkozy and company ten years off.

Real Men Vote for McCain

I LOVE IT ! Here's why Real Men Vote for McCain. . .

Wake Up Jefe (Gunkan March)

Not a lot of posting this week: real life has tended to interfere some, but I should have some time this weekend, and hope to catch up.

In the meantime, it's a warm afternoon here, and I'm wishing a nap was possible. If you need some waking up, give the Imperial Japan...oops, I mean the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force Eastern Army Band playing the Gunkan (Warship) March a listen (and, by the way, if you know where El Jefe can find the Gunkan March on CD, he'd love to know) . . .

Loons Bankrupting the Asylum

With the decision to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Government is now effectively bailer-outer to the whole world; and, never mind the consequences to the dollar, the Government's balance sheets and the fact the Government, with scarcely any debate, is putting your grandkids in hock miles higher than their eyeballs (they were already in to their eyeballs). If you were looking for a way to guarantee $8.00 a gallon gas, this was it.

Clearly, the lesson here is that, if you're big enough, you can make the taxpayers pay for anything, forever.

But forget all that -- forget that the currency is being debauched and debased, and the country being bankrupted. Worry, instead, about a stupid magazine cover.

Missiles and Sabres Rattling All Over the Place

I was preparing a post on the Iranian missile firings yesterday, and again today, but I'm going to hold off a bit. Events are moving rather quickly.

The Iranians have threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz and set Israel "on fire" if they are attacked. The US Navy, in the person of the commander of the US Fifth Fleet (Vice-Admiral Cosgriff) says that Iran will not be allowed to do this. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has sent a "message to Iran" that the US ". . .will defend American interests and. . .the interests of our allies." Defend how?

Meanwhile, the Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, says that Israel is the ". . .strongest country in the region and. . .is not afraid to take action when its vital security interests are at stake." Meanwhile, the Iranians, Little Green Footballs reports, apparently photoshopped pictures of their missile launching, adding some missiles. Why? Maybe because, as the the International Institute of Strategic Studies thinks, the Iranians had a misfire.

On that subject, Haaretz reports that parts of the Israeli military-industrial complex don't appear particularly impressed with the Iranian toys: opining that the Shahab-3 ested is not a new variant of that missile but is the same old liquid-fueled version they've had for years. Liquid fuel can be problematical for a ballistic missile: fueling is not simple, is time-consuming, and produces easily observable plumes and discharges, as watchers of American liquid-fueled space launches can attest. Reliable solid fuel rockets are harder to produce, but the Iranians have models under development.

Naturally, the dollar's falling again, and oil's rising. Was that the object of the exercise to begin with? OPEC warns that if there is war with Iran, oil prices may rise by an unlimited amount, because the loss of Iranian production cannot be made up.

I suppose if there's not war with Iran, oil will go up by an unlimited amount also? When Iran gets its bomb, the Sunnis will have to have one too. How will that be paid for?

We are all moving into uncharted and very dangerous waters. It is not clear to me, and probably to others, that all the players really understand this.

Feckless

My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.

Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940), Prime Minister of Great Britain. speech, 30 September 1938, Downing Street, London, on the occasion of the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany.

* * *

Gorman: Apone! Look... we can't have any firing in there. I, uh... I want you to collect magazines from everybody.

Hudson: Is he fuckin' crazy?

Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language?

Aliens (1986) William Hope as "Lieut. Gorman," Al Matthews as "Sgt. Apone," Bill Paxton as "Pvt. Hudson," Ricco Ross as "Pvt. Frost." Directed by James Cameron.

St. Barack of Obama to Matt Lauer (NBC Today Show), on the Iranian missile firings:

There is no doubt that we're seeing rising tensions in the area. . . It's part of the reason why it's so important for us to have a coherent policy with respect to Iran.... It has to combine much tougher threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy, opening up channels of communication, so that we avoid provocation but we give the Iranians strong incentives to change their behavior. . .Part of what we have to do is get the Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians to recognize that it is in nobody's interests, including Iran's, I believe, to have a nuclear weapon that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.

See, Iranians, St. Barack knows what's in your interest better than you do, just like he knows what's in our interest better than we do. Put away your mean toys now, and quit building nukes, or he'll whip out the "tough, direct presidential diplomacy" and drop the ultimate weapon -- corner you in some diplo-fest and bore you to death.

Then there's Nancy Pelosi, Speaker ad nauseum of the US House of Representatives:

Iran's provocative test launching of long-range missiles is detrimental to a resolution of the issues that separate Iran from the international community. Widespread condemnation from around the world should send a clear signal to Iranian leaders that such actions hinder diplomatic efforts to bring stability to the Middle East.

Wow, I bet she was on her elementary school's Safety Patrol. Be warned, Mullahs, unless you want to be separated from the international community or hurt Middle Eastern stability -- both big concerns of yours. Worse, you might have to endure her generalities in person, like poor old Boy Assad in Syria. Wise up, and sing Kumbaya now, or at the very least she'll send Code Pink over to hold a sit-in demonstration.

"Go Hang," Dead Man Mugabe Says

Former Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe (legally deposed in Zimbabwe's presidential election last 29 March, but hanging on to power as long as the troops obey) is in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt for an African Union summit conference.

The former President, but still murderous usurping tyrant, is very upset that the world has taken a small degree of notice of his faked results, his attacks on voters and his sham run-off election. The tyrant's "Presidential" spokesman, a George Charamba, says that the western countries demanding that his master be called to account ". . . can go hang. They can go and hang a thousand times."

Mr. Charamba should perhaps remember that others can, and probably will, hang, or be defenestrated, shot, decapitated, or any number of other grisly possibilities. Mouthpieces of tyrants often have a good time before the real world catches up to them. Just ask Joe Goebbels, when you see him.

"Go Hang," indeed. Poor choice of words, Mr. Charamba ! Whatever happens to you, it can hardly be a worse fate than the murder and torture your (very old) evil master is handing out to thousands of your innocent fellow countrymen. But don't worry: when the string runs out, you can tell whatever kangaroo court you wind up in front of that you were only a "Presidential" spokesman, only following orders, and that you didn't know what your boss's rougher minions were doing to your fellow citizens. Maybe it'll even work -- although the court told those who tried it at Nuremburg to "go hang." If you're very unlucky, you'll get relatives of your master's victims as judges.

Act now, Mr. Charamba ! If you jump first, and help others worried about the future to arrange a quick end for the tyrant, you (and your family) will be living the high life in New York or Paris, taking the call from your memoir publisher; having students call you "professor;" or hearing the same smarmy journalists laughing at you today addressing you as "ambassador" and begging you to include them at your next expense-account-paid party in Restaurant Le Meurice or Le Bernadin. If you delay, you'll wind up at the side of a road someplace, staring at the mud in the ditch, waiting for the bullet in the neck, with your family (if they're lucky) penniless refugees someplace.

Think on this, Mr. Charamba, on the long trip back to Harare, as the living dead swill their Euro champagne and outdo each other telling your doddering old bastard of a boss that he's still got it. He's done man, and so are you, if you stay with him. Come to think of it, it's a long, long flight from Sharm el-Sheikh to Harare. . . Choose wisely, and soon. Mr. Charamba. Happy trails.