From the horse's mouth, so to speak. The author "David Kilcullen is Senior Counterinsurgency Adviser, Multi-National Force—Iraq". He describes the basic strategy for the 'surge', which is to not only clear and hold pieces of territory, but is a population-centric and not enemy-centric startegy. And it could fail dramatically, because the question is, is there enough police/army troops to hold every single population center? That's what's going to happen, essentially, as we clear out the bad guys, they're going to go somewhere else. If we leave this new area, they'll come back. Do we have the patience for this? I'm not sure. I see this strategy taking 150,000 troops and 5 years to finish. With presidential elections in a year, we could be out of Iraq by then. If we do that, we'll lose. If we stay, we'll win. I think it's pretty simple.

This has been going on for the last 24 hours, but still not much has been reported. It's as big as the Fallujah offensives; it's the biggest push since the original invasion. At least 10,000 U.S. soldiers are involved in pushing Al Qaeda out of Baquba. Actually, the plan is to trap them in there, then kill them.

Here's this report on FoxNews (which was 'above the fold' for maybe a few hours.

Michael Yon promises to be on top of the story (practically the only journalist in the world who is, so far).

Mark my words, this will be a defining battle.

Update: Bill Roggio has the scoop on what is actually happening, as far as the scope of the operation and who is involved (which forces).

What do they have in common? Not much, but a child with a brain tumor got his wish to work with Blizzard for a day. Read more.

Having multiple CPU cores doesn't really do much for any application, except high multi-threaded apps. But there are needs for PCs that run insanely powerful CPUs; where I work, a database search can take days; that's days of downtime. Not good. Having well written software and a very fast CPU framework that could spit out those results in an hour would certainly make life much easier.

And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in Iraq--or will we betray them, and along with them, America's future security?

As Instapundit says, read the whole thing.

If all of our politicians were as earnest on Iraq as Lieberman, the war would be very different (on the home front). The troops wouldn't worry about their funding getting suddenly cut, etc.

(a online game)...I have a legitimate illness, and can see a shrink, and the insurance company will reimburse me (because I have a legit illness, ie appearing in the DSM IV). That's what the AMA recommends, anyway.

There are oodles of things, from earmarks, to Iraq, to presidental politicking by those who could otherwise lead the senate, to other forms of corruption (no, really officer, the freezer magically generates wads of cash). But anyway, the percentage of those polled who think congress is doing a good job is now in the mid-20s. Here is a graph of data prior to this summer. Here is data from May. Sen. Bill Frist now says this number is in the mid-20s.

ANYWAY. My point is that since the dems have taking over in congress, they have done very little. And the public's opinion of congress as a whole has actually decreased from the anemic mid-30s numbers from the republican majority days of 06. And I don't necessarily blame the dems squarely.

But really, if they swept to power on a public mandate for change, how could they possibly do WORSE than the republicans? Surely its hard to do worse?

Earmarks matter. Iraq matters. So far they haven't taken leadership on any issue. Why would i trust them with the presidency? (By the same token, why would a trust a republican with the presidency, since their party isn't all that peachy-keen now.)

This article pretty much shows my point, with more eloquence and links.

Ralph Peter describes the (inevitable) comparison, and the question of what will happen if we pull out.

The [American liberal] left doesn't care how many Iraqis die, as long as President Bush can be humiliated. Four years ago, the neocons fantasized about a post-Saddam Age of Aquarius. Now the Murthacrats insist that, once we bail out, Atlantis will rise from the Tigris and Euphrates. The willful naivete is identical. The only differences are the timing and who gets blamed.

Look at Gaza, at the orgy of self-destructive savagery, the macho idiocy, the junkyard-dog religion and the murder-suicide cult sweeping Arab civilization. Then note that, barring a few fringe players, only two sides are fighting in the Gaza Strip.

That may be true, but if Arab civilization is truely incapable of ruling itself, as soon as we pull out, anarchy will ensue. Therefore, the timing doesn't matter. I hope and pray that is wrong, though. Iraq is different from other Arab states in that it has a huge bounty of oil at it's disposal, and a moderately educated populance (which is being depleted every day by killings and mass exodus of smart people). But these two factors alone may allow Iraq to rise from anarchy and have a truly stable state.

Always good to know your job could suck worse. Story Here.

Story here. Sounds like sci fi, but not. Apparently very rare, and minimal side effects. Hint, why is blood red in first place? That's why his blood was green.

In the UK. Glad to know our country isn't the only screwed up educational system.

Says an Kenyan economist. Bravo, we need to hear more of this. How long has Africa received aid? What is the result? Are there any numbers? Has mortality decreased at all? Has lifespan increased? See also this piece (also from Spiegel).

Juxtapose that with this outcry from Bono at the G8 summit.

Here is a chart showing that unlike Asia and the mideast, Africa mortality remained relatively stable and GDP regressed significantly. Actually, the effect of aid on Africa is a huge issue. By examining this text, there was a four-fold (approx) decrease in child mortality until mid-90s, then a sharp increase. For adult mortality it's been mostly the same since the 70s. So, if our aid is actually doing any good, it should help the average African live longer, due to more food, better health-care, etc. For children this seems to be the case. For adults, not so much. But the text emphasizes that mortality data is very hard to come by, and of somewhat questionable use.

Then there's this:

The Washington Center for Global Development has calculated that $3,521 of development aid would have to be invested per person, in order to increase the per capita yearly income of the target group by $3.65.

So, let's say someone gives me $100 in aid, to say, invest in textbooks to gain education to get a better job. Say there were a million people like me. The net result of $100 of aid would be to increase my yearly salary $1. Does that make sense? That's insane.

So J and I saw Weird Al (myspace here)in concert last night at the Verizon wireless theatre. It was my first time in the theatre, i was surprised how small it was. Equally surprising are the beer prices; $9 for a 20oz bottle of corona. I'll pass, thanks. Anyway, Weird Al came on promptly at 8, and lasted until 10:30. So, a very long set. He played pretty much all the popular Weird Al songs; ie 'eat it', the two star wars songs, 'white and nerdy', 'Albuquerque', 'i'm fat', 'omish paradise'. Anyway, a really great show and a great birthday treat. I figure i probably won't ever have an opportunity to see him again, so i'm glad we went.

Guy in wheelchair gets stuck in semi's front grill, as it tools around at up to 50 mph. Hard to believe, but picts don't lie (or do they?)

How permanent are your inkjet prints? Depends on the type of ink and media used. But surprisingly, OEM cartridges such as HP are vastly superior to aftermarket inks. (refillable or not). Here is the report (pdf). This means that if you want your prints to last more than a few years, you should definitely use inks from the manufacturer; especially if it's a HP printer. If you don't care about your vacation snapshots lasting decades, then by all means, use the after-market, cheaper inks.