Some ways to help
I just donated some money to Operation Uplink, a service run by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW):

Operation Uplink is a unique program that keeps military personnel and hospitalized veterans in touch with their families and loved ones by providing them with a free phone card. Using contributions from supporters like you, Operation Uplink purchases phone cards and distributes them to servicemen and women who are separated from those they care about.

Other ways to help enlisted men and women are listed at the "Defend America" Pentagon web site (via Sergeant Stryker), which notes

Please do not flood the military mail system with letters, cards, and gifts. Due to security concerns and transportation constraints, the Department cannot accept items to be mailed to " Any Servicemember ." Some people have tried to avoid this prohibition by sending large numbers of packages to an individual servicemember's address, which however well intentioned, clogs the mail and causes unneccessary delays.

One program that isn't listed there is simple and brilliant: be a foster caregiver for a soldier's pet. Soldiers are often left with no recourse but the pound for their pets when they ship out, which can't be very good for morale [ed.: ...or for the pets, of course]. NetPets and Hugs for Homeless Animals run programs. (Via Electrolite via Off the Kuff; both anti-war, by the way, in case you mistakenly think such folks don't care about the troops.)

There I go
Ever write something that looks a little overwrought the next day? ("No, we leave that to you.") I guess I was a little too worried this time. The Washington Post reported

U.S. commanders responded by ordering intense airstrikes, which they said wiped out much of one convoy of several hundred vehicles believed to be ferrying Iraqi militiamen and soldiers from the Medina Division of the Republican Guard.

Some American officials characterized the move as more of a repositioning than an attempted attack.

There are reports -- possibly propaganda, but it fits with my (possibly propagandized) view of Iraq -- that army units were compelled at gunpoint and/or by threats to family members to participate in suicidal actions like the Basra "breakout." If so, you have to reconsider that feeling that "at least some more bad guys bit the dust" when you read about shot-up convoys and the like. A lot of the people we're shooting at are up against it in a terrible way. The ratio of hard-core to soft-core Saddam support may be *increasing* as coalition forces whittle away at Iraqi defenses: the "fedayeen" are using regular Iraqi army units as expendable "armed human shields." posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:57:00 AM -- |    

 

Here they come
CNN reports "Elite Iraqi Units Reported Moving to Challenge U.S. Troops":

A column of up to 1,000 Iraqi military vehicles was reported moving south Wednesday night toward Najaf, the scene of an earlier battle with U.S. forces, U.S. Army officers told CNN.

The column is believed to be made up of troops from Iraq's elite Republican Guard. The forces were moving from Baghdad at a rate of 18 mph to 36 mph, toward the lead elements of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, CNN's Walter Rodgers reports.

The story was filed at 3:44PM, or about midnight Baghdad time, I guess; assuming the story is more or less true, 3rd Infantry soldiers might be in a pretty big fight by now or soon. There's been a similar large scale Iraqi armored move near Basra (BBC).

Take care, 3rd. You too, Brits, Marines, and all the rest of you. Good luck. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:00:00 PM -- |    

 

Merkel doesn't speak for all CDU members, either
Move along if German domestic politics bore you. Angela Merkel, chairperson of the main conservative opposition party CDU, has staked out a pretty resolutely pro-American/Bush/Atlantic alliance (as you prefer) position in German politics. Her "Schroeder doesn't speak for all Germans" op-ed in the Washington Post a month ago got her a lot of unfavorable attention in Germany, despite the fairly nuanced position she actually took.

But Merkel doesn't exactly dominate her party, and an old intra CDU/CSU feud with Edmund Stoiber (Schroeder's rather hapless opponent for chancellor last year) seems to be reviving. Die Welt reports that there may be a growing split inside the CDU/CSU about Iraq:

...One [party leader] said that people were having increasing "stomachaches" in the face of how the Americans were proceeding. Merkel may have been "too emphatic" [ueberzogen] with her early position on the issue. The Adenauer Haus [party headquarters] is worried about the mood in the rank and file. Since the beginning of the war there have been hundreds of protest letters -- including from party members. And local organizations are reporting increasing numbers of resignations from the party.

Stoiber, for his part, remarked that

one must do everything to get the USA to understand itself as a "European nation." Stoiber added, "We are concerned [betroffen] by the war. But we do not need to take responsibility for it. I hope that it's over soon."

(Yes, he really said the "European nation" bit.) Stoiber's comment obviously isn't designed for American consumption, but he may well have his finger to the prevailing German wind (so to speak...)

Merkel also expressed "concern," but said that while friendship didn't preclude "critical solidarity," the war was a reality, and she supported the United States. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:30:00 PM -- |    

 

Department of Orders of Magnitude
Lileks writes, in an otherwise OK column:

At Normandy ten men died every second. Up and down the coast. All the damn day long.

I don't think so; that's 10*60*60=36,000 per hour. The overall death count (Allies, Axis, French civilians) for the 87 day period from June 6 through August 31, 1944 is estimated around 87,200. Ten per minute seems more "like it": 10*60*24= 14,400. That sounds about right, given that there were Axis soldiers and French civilian dead as well.

But even at ten per minute, Lilek's point is still valid: let's all (1) get a grip and (2) hope it never gets anywhere near that bad. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:28:00 PM -- |    

 

Suspected chemical weapons facility at An Najaf
Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post reports that the US Army 3d Division may have uncovered a chemical weapons facility at An Najaf, 90 miles south of Baghdad. The 100 acre compound was camouflaged, and surrounded by an electric fence, and protected by a small contingent of Iraqi soldiers, including a general who may be cooperating with American military officials. However, no confirmation that the facility is indeed a chemical weapons plant yet from Centcom in Qatar:

US Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, Deputy Commander of Central Command, told reporters: "I'm not going to confirm that report, but we have one or two generals officers who are providing us with information."

UN inspectors were not aware of the site, according to CNN:

U.N. weapons inspection spokesman Ewen Buchanan said the inspectors are "not aware of a large scale chemical weapons facility near Najaf."

"But Iraq clearly has a large number of dual-use chemical facilities related to its petrochemical industry, which were being investigated prior to withdrawal of the inspectors," Buchanan said. "We are not aware of any significant dual-use chemical facilities in Najaf town."

MSNBC and Fox are now speaking of not one but two suspected chemical weapons finds. According to an ex-inspector I watched on TV, the second site involves suspected chemical munitions near Al Kut (sp?), but I can't find that online yet; the An Najaf facility may have got the headlines because a reporter happened to be "embedded" with the unit that discovered it.

News organizations are being careful not to overreport this; the "exploitation teams" who could confirm the news haven't made their conclusions known yet.

UPDATE, 3/25, 1PM: David Sanger of the New York Times reports today that "Suspicions on Sunday that a chemical plant in An Najaf was a weapons site have turned out to be false."

=====
Edit, 3/24, 1PM: "chemical weapons facilities" changed to "chemical weapons finds", the Kut? one, as I wrote, apparently being suspected munitions, not a suspected factory. As noted above, the key word is still "suspected", not "confirmed." Here is a Google News search for "najaf chemical" by recency. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:36:00 AM -- |    

 

Germany, Japan ... Iraq?
Josh Marshall has an interesting column in "The Hill," followed by a wrapup he wrote after getting e-mails about it. His point is that the utterly catastrophic kind of bombing that happened to Japan and Germany is precisely what will not happen with Iraq, so that -- he thinks -- there may not be the same kind of "well ... shock and awe" that enabled -- he suggests -- a transition to a new society for those two countries.

To be clear, Marshall is certainly not arguing for catastrophic bombing of Iraq. He's arguing against expecting a Japan/Germany-like transition to democracy. I suppose I don't think the only route for a totalitarian society to democracy is via getting bombed to smithereens; at least I hope it isn't. And maybe that wasn't exactly what happened in Germany and Japan, or at least not the only thing.

But say that is what happened in those two countries; the Iraqi situation seems quite different to me, because I think the Iraqis have not identified with their regime to the same degree that Germans and Japanese identified with theirs. No "transformative" experience may be needed. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:55:00 AM -- |    

 

Umm Qasr firefight coverage
A pocket of resistance in Umm Qasr -- considered "secure" if not safe -- is getting a great deal of coverage on all stations right now, since about 2AM EST or so. Apparently a hundred or so Iraqis decided to fight on after all; the thing is spiraling up to a fairly major fight, tanks, other vehicles. A lot of hurry up and wait, motionless Marines with rifles trained on a set of buildings in the middle distance. Then, tank fire into a building. Then, newsroom chatter about it all.

A funny moment early on: the anchor asks the Sky News reporter if he and his cameraman feel safe enough; the reporter relays the question to the cameraman; for an answer, the cameraman sticks his hand in front of the camera and waggles the "so-so" sign.

A lot of annoying "isn't it amazing that we can watch this" etcetera from the newsroom people, and somewhat annoying expert commentary "the Marines aren't pinned down, they've chosen to lie down." Fact is, they're not moving, and a lot of additional soldiers seem to have been brought in to deal with the fight. It's not necessarily some tremendously major problem, but since the US and UK aren't there with utterly overwhelming force, firefights like these in the rear are effective Iraqi resistance. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:31:00 AM -- |