Michael Yon: The Battle for Kandahar, Part I

Go see the fabulous images, "The Battle for Kandahar: Part I":

The Battle for Kandahar has begun. The face of this battle is not one of sudden fury but a process, a complex struggle for legitimacy between local Taliban governance and Kabul rule.

A scent of weakness is in the air. The Taliban remain deadly and capable – yet they seem to be losing the initiative. “Shaping Operations” are underway. Special Operations Forces are picking off and collecting key Taliban leaders. With our increase in troops, the Taliban must spend more time on self-defence, deducting from their capacity for offensive operations.

This year, 2010, is particularly crucial for the future of Afghanistan. The fight is on for key physical terrain, political terrain, and information dominance. Before Christmas, we will know who won the Battle for Kandahar. Who wins this Battle likely will win the war.

Consider a contribution to keep Michael in the field, at the link. (Via Memeorandum.)

The Truth About American Muslims!

Hey, is the administration taking after Christian militias to get in good with CAIR and the neo-communist left? "Daniel" at Attackerman has the headline of the day, "The Sad Truth About American Muslims and Terrorism":

One of the problems with coverage of terrorism and anti-terrorist stings today is that there’s never enough attention given to the Muslim groups that denounce the attacks. When someone of Muslim descent is arrested for terrorism the reporting rarely includes Muslim advocacy groups (which, alas, I fear I need to stress have no link to terrorists and are entirely peaceful and American) that publish press releases denouncing the attacks.

It’s only in situations like the sting today, where the lunatics are gearing up to kill “the anti-christ” who they believe has taken Muslim form (where have we heard that one before?) that the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists gets any attention at all ...

Oh Jesus this guy can't be serious! No link to terrorism! Well blow me down!

Or, no. Wait a second. It's me right? I'm stupid. I don't know all the Internet traditions! This is a joke, a caricature. Gosh, they almost pulled a fast one on me! Those wily "moderate" Muslim (unindicted co-conspirator) groups have really run a number here, or something, considering their earlier (obviously manufactured) boasts of powerful media influence after our recent totally aberrant attacks seen at places like Fort Hood. ("CAIR boasts of influence on media after Fort Hood: Group treated as voice of Muslims despite fresh evidence of terror ties.")

Yeah, that must be it, but just case, see "Despite Record Levels of Islamic Terror in U.S., FBI raids Christian Groups." And, "Amidst record levels of Islamic terrorism in U.S., FBI raids Christian militia groups."

Also, at Detroit News, "Seven arrested in FBI raids linked to Christian militia group." (Via Memeorandum.)

Henry Farrell: Hey, My Socialism Doesn't Interfere With My 'Rigorous' Non-Partisan Political Research!

Henry Farrell, a fairly well-known academic leftist and conservative blog-basher, pretends to be analytical and "balanced," at the Monkey Cage, "Feavered Speculation":

Peter Feaver is a reasonably well-known political scientist, working in the political science department at Duke University. He is also someone of recognizable partisan inclinations, having served for a spell in the Bush White House. This certainly isn’t a problem as such - I have recognizable partisan inclinations (which I try not to indulge on this blog) myself. But it is a problem if it interferes with purportedly political scientific analysis, or, worse, if it becomes a substitute for such analysis. And … well … how can I put this best … Either Feaver has identified an important new effect, which overturns the existing political science consensus that Presidential rhetoric has no significant consequences for public opinion. Or he is allowing his personal druthers and biases - Obama has a reverse Midas Touch! Everything he touches turns to dreck! - to substitute for actual analysis.

It's a pretty wonkish post, with links to current "cutting-edge" research. But for all of Henry's high-falutin' jargon, he's in pretty epic fail territory. The explanation's found in common sense here, less so confidence intervals, statistical significance, or what not. Face it, Henry: Obama's a loser. Can't console yourself in research suggesting presidents only influence things "at the margins." Folks just don't like Obama's signature legislative "achievement," and never really have.

Anyway, just know that Henry would never question his radical leftist cohorts for any potential partisan inclinations. No no! This is about what really constitutes "good political science"! (Neocons need not apply?)

And don't miss Feaver's original essay, "Has Obama Lost His Silver Tongue?"