The New Face of World War
February 1, 2006 1:38 AM   Subscribe

World War IV As Fourth-Generation Warfare
posted by Gyan (49 comments total)
posted by Gyan at 1:38 AM on February 1, 2006

Wo - too much writing! (27 footnotes?! *shudder*) :-/
posted by Chunder at 1:56 AM on February 1, 2006

::bookmarks for reading at work tomorrow::
posted by VirtualWolf at 1:58 AM on February 1, 2006

A summary for the lazy among us?
posted by hwestiii at 2:18 AM on February 1, 2006

The challenge confronting the West today is at once less than a full-fledged clash of civilizations and more than some unspecified war on terrorism: It is first and foremost an insurgency within Islam, which began in earnest in 1979, and for which the West remained, at least until 2001, a secondary theater of operations.


The West is at war with a new totalitarianism for which terrorism is one technique or tactic among many. At the operational and theater-strategic level, then, counterinsurgency is a more relevant paradigm than counterterrorism; and at the national-strategic level, the nexus between insurgency and weapons of mass disruption will have to be given at least as much importance as the much-discussed nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction

In summary, Iran must be invaded, occupied, and destroyed as a culture and as a people.
posted by three blind mice at 2:37 AM on February 1, 2006


It's "policy analysis" output like this that drives me to drink.
posted by Jimbob at 2:40 AM on February 1, 2006

(Assuming it does come to the conclusions you suggest, three blind mice. You've turned me off reading further.)
posted by Jimbob at 2:43 AM on February 1, 2006

Factual inaccuracy:
global war on terrorism (GWOT)
Everybody knows it is the war against terrorism (TWAT).

And I finally found use for the zoom function in firefox.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:04 AM on February 1, 2006

Halfway through, "Iraq was a necessary war". What a pile of horseshit. Just because it's long and has footnotes doesn't make it any less horseshit. And his footnote "proving" this point?

23. Robert Kagan, “Whether this war was worth it,” Washington Post (June 19, 2005), and Tod Lindberg, “Are we creating more terrorists?,” Washington Times (August 16, 2005).

Two op-eds. Two fucking op-eds... to justify 200+ billion down the drain and an Iraq in civil war. And this is AFTER talking about how important hearts and minds are.. with a special emphasis on 'hearts'.

The appearance of scholarship does not imply actual intelligence.
posted by Malor at 3:37 AM on February 1, 2006

Malor: The Hoover Institution is a super conservative think tank. It is known for publishing very biased pieces.
posted by alex3005 at 3:46 AM on February 1, 2006

It also claims that al-Jazeera is a 'jihadist' broadcaster, and that similar broadcasts have lead to an increase in support for suicide bombings amongst Palestinians. At the very least that seems to be an over-simplification with a political (anti-al-Jazeera) motive.
posted by alasdair at 3:48 AM on February 1, 2006

I agree with the comment suggesting that the author is way off base in stating that the Iraq war was worth whom? Did he serve there? If as seems the case that situation ends in civil war, then what has been accomplished. At present we have brought democracy to the region..Hamas is now in power.

We have a need tha Arab world has: OIL...they have a target they want preserved: Mecca.

Turn though attention to the non-Arab Muslim world. Will they "unite' to fight theWest? China? I doubt it.
posted by Postroad at 3:54 AM on February 1, 2006

Some background on a term important to the paper, which is never fully explained in it: 4GW
posted by melt away at 4:08 AM on February 1, 2006

It also claims that al-Jazeera is a 'jihadist' broadcaster

This is a lie that I've ceased concerning myself with, for some reason. Jihadist fundamentalists seem to hate al-Jazeera as much as western conservatives, so it must be doing something right. Note that, at the end of the day, western media broadcasts the same "terrorist tapes" that al-Jazeera does - al-Jazeera just gets their hands on them first, the same way CNN would get their hands on US-sourced content before al-Jazeera does. I mean, al-Jazeera frequently broadcasts appeals from families of people kidnapped in Iraq. Come on!
posted by Jimbob at 4:14 AM on February 1, 2006

Just as an FYI, Al Jazeera is formed largely of former BBC employees. BBC with an arab face. Watch 'Control Room' the documentary for a better and more accurate idea of what Al-Jazeera is and what it represents.
posted by mk1gti at 4:33 AM on February 1, 2006

This article is a good example of why US think-tank pieces are, frankly, untrustworthy -- too many assumptions that go into them (Iraq was worth it, Al-Jazeera is a jihadist network) are untainted by evidence and don't pass the smell test.
posted by clevershark at 5:31 AM on February 1, 2006

I read a good bit of this article and I must say that reading the comments in this thread reminds me of the post in the last week about the way that political partisans tend to minimize things that they don't agree with.

While I didn't agree with some of the points made in the article (including the idea that the Iraq was was worth it), I thought that the author raised some very interesting and insightful points. I did think that the author used language that was unnecessarily complex.

To say that the author claims that Al-Jazeera is a jihadist network is a simplistic version of his actual argument. He claims that the actual religious fundementalist structure that results in terrorism is much more complex then has been recognized. Under point two he makes the case that as a religious movement the current "jihad" against the west includes many facets that are not being considered by the "war on terror."

On the whole, I think that most of the discussion in this thread so far has been concerned with arguing about superficial parts of the article and not considering the deeper context that he is attempting to use to explain the "jihadist" movement.
posted by jefeweiss at 7:06 AM on February 1, 2006

Three Blind Mice, have you RTFA? If so, please tell me what Iranian Twelver Shi'ism has to do with Sunni Salafism (the "menace" referred to in the article), and how anybody who grasps the basics of this fundamental divide within Islam (akin to the Protestant/Catholic division in Christianity) would conclude that invading Iran would help reduce the dangers of Salafism?
posted by davy at 7:09 AM on February 1, 2006

Because see invading Iran to stamp out Salfism would be like invading the Vatican to wipe out the Baptists.
posted by davy at 7:13 AM on February 1, 2006

whoa. that article has a yofego (your fucking eyes glaze over) factor of 7.8, and ghostzilla only goes up to 6.

have to save it for later.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:29 AM on February 1, 2006

Because see invading Iran to stamp out Salfism would be like invading the Vatican to wipe out the Baptists.

Or invading Iraq to wipe out Al-Qaeda?
posted by Chuckles at 7:47 AM on February 1, 2006

He claims that the actual religious fundementalist structure that results in terrorism is much more complex then has been recognized.

Sure, it is much more complex than certain groups recognize. Other groups don't have any trouble recognizing complexity, even if they don't understand the specific details.

I guess I will have to read it anyway though...
posted by Chuckles at 7:53 AM on February 1, 2006

As one of the early contributors to the development of Netwar theory, I can state without reservation that Corn doesn't have a clue.

This is not Netwar because the jihadists are not institutionalized in any meaningful sense. Netwar is a conflict (in civil or uncivil society) where at least one of the sides is organized along TIMN (Tribe, Institution, Market, Network) lines. TWAT is a TMN vs TIM conflict.

The jihadists lack institutions and the USG lacks networks. The US is a purely institutional cultural form.

See Ronfeldt for the TIMN framework for societal evolution and what TIMN and the variants mean.

Corn is just piling up buzzwords to justify current policy while trying to appear "forward-leaning."

He's a hack and a fool. Having read many of the works he cites, it is obvious as hell that he is just padding his work without ever reading or understanding the cited sources. The clue to this (which every grad student who has ever graded papers should know) is his references are lacking in specific quotes and page citations.

Hack and tanker, this boy.

The Hoover claque has been tooting Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" canard for a long time. If you read Huntington carefully, you'll see that he really isn't talking about civilizations, but rather about "races" -- this is especially clear in the later chapters of his book where he starts substituting the word "race" for "civilization"; having tired of the subterfuge as the book progressed.

Huntington's thesis becomes very clear if you do a little substitution of "the white race" for "the West" and "dirty wogs and niggers" for "the Muslim world." The meaning doesn't change a bit when you do it -- White Supremacy uber alles.
posted by warbaby at 8:05 AM on February 1, 2006

The wrongest statement in this article: " is far from clear that a different administration would have done any better."

At this point, it's pretty clear that most other administrations would have done a lot better. It starts with not being bullied by the Vice Prez and Defense Secretary.
posted by js003 at 8:22 AM on February 1, 2006

As is more than apparent from the author blurb, Corn is a hack and political appointee, not a foreign service professional.
posted by warbaby at 9:08 AM on February 1, 2006

While I agree with warbaby - and clevershark (Corn is a goof who posits too many initial assumptions for a decent analysis) I also agree with jefeweiss that there are some interesting insights and ideas there.

The state department (and the pentagon) do need to switch their thinking.
Saudi Arabia has indeed used it’s influence to mold the shape of the theocracy in the Muslim world. The translating books and focus on education is a good idea and the strategy of truth is a better idea than playing kick ass and run like we did with the Soviets because the Soviets didn’t have the mobility. And China is indeed a big Magilla in Islamic relations and oil-politics.

I do think Corn is right that we have to grow up and learn patience as a country. There is a bit of schizophrenia going on now - not just the Red/Blue dichotomy, but the intensity of it. There is little recognition of the continuing line of policy and history (tradition if you will) - rather there has been - particularly by this administration - an attempt to break that line and force change rather than slowly bend it and allow for adaptation, if indeed that is warranted which you can’t find out unless you give it time. (This “chronopolitical” dimension of statecraft - dunno, sounds like conservatism to me).

I think involvement in Iraq was necessary. I am well open to debate as to whether war was necessary. And I’m certainly wholly opposed to how the war was prosecuted and I believe that invalidates any good that might come of it. A lie taints anything after it and the lack of clarity in execution delegitimizes whatever policy might have been in place.

But that is one of the themes throughout the piece. Corn allows for fuzzy execution - (indeed even in his own article with buzzwords like “crisp” for clear or sharp and this “Don’t say/say instead” crap which annoys the shit out of me) as long as the timing is ok or if it looks ok.

His assertion that: “if neoconservatives got only one thing wrong, it would have to be this: The greatness of a policy is not measured by the breadth of a geopolitical vision or the boldness of its goals and objectives; ultimately, it is measured by the mastery of the chronopolitical dimension in the course of policy implementation” is far too forgiving.

In the same vein if I come up with an idea for a great movie (say, one set in space, a long time ago in a galaxy far away) but I don’t write it, act, direct, produce, or do anything else but come up with the idea, I have only missed doing one thing in the creation of Star Wars.
Understanding and anticipating the execution of a policy is a large part of making a policy decision. We can set an agenda and state we will go to Mars, but if we have no plans for how to execute it, how to even get the pre-planning done, that policy is shit.

I would likely be one of his “military paleo-cons” who understood the operational and tactical realities, but understanding there is a tactic such as “three block war” does not mean you can shoehorn that tactic into any policy decision you care to make.

Coherence of goal is key. So we’re back to square one - the war in Iraq is not self-justifying. And neither is direct conflict with the “jihadists.”

He seems to defeat his own assertions about tempo and timing here, and organizational patience (if I’m reading it right).

The thing reads more like an prospective apology and justification for asserting values dominance than any sort of analysis.

So - interesting insights - yes, but that doesn’t make up for poor execution or fuzzy initial premises. Completely screws it in fact.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:35 AM on February 1, 2006

Three Blind Mice, have you RTFA? If so, please tell me what Iranian Twelver Shi'ism has to do with Sunni Salafism (the "menace" referred to in the article), an

Yeah davy, I actually did read some of the article, but like the SOTU address, one can only take in so much smelly bullshit bfore turning it off. To me this is all about Iran. The part I quoted above:

"It is first and foremost an insurgency within Islam, which began in earnest in 1979"

obviously refers to the Islamic Revolution that occurred in Iran that year and which spelled the beginning of the end of the era of secular dictators in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was the last bullwark aganst Islamic fundamentalism and he's out of work now.

This use of the word "insurgency" by the Hoover Institute seems to me to be an intentional effort to morph this into the "insurgency" in Iraq as if those two have anything to do with each other.

Face it. The right wingers in America and Israel are building their case for an invasion of Iran and this Policy Review is just another one of the weak "intellectual" argments in favor of it.

The Islamic menace. What menace? China is a menace. Russia is a menace. Islamic terrorists are a nusiance to the West. As Josef Stalin observed of the Vatican "How many divisions does the pope have?" This whole 4GW smacks of a little too much tinfoil hat paranoia to be taken seriously - especially when it is convenient cover for other, less transparent foreign policy goals. Pseudo-research like this from the Hoover Institute is just an attempt to give this foolishness a patina of legitimacy.
posted by three blind mice at 9:36 AM on February 1, 2006

warbaby -"not a foreign service professional."

Ah, that changes everything.

This piece is a really good try! Gold star!

Good for you Mr. Corn! Now go and have some hot chocolate before nap time.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:38 AM on February 1, 2006

So - interesting insights - yes, but that doesn’t make up for poor execution or fuzzy initial premises. Completely screws it in fact.

Very good post Smedleyman. Whatever the policy is, there has to be a workable plan to accomplish it.

What amazes me is that for decades the "conservatives" have pointed out (accurately I think) the incompetence of government to achieve even simple stated goals like educating kindergarten students. Since Reagan, the "conservatives" have derided the concept of "nation building" for much the very same reasons. Any attempt to use the military in this manner leads to "mission creep" and failure. The job of the military is to kill people and break things - not to "nation build."

Now suddenly, these same people, or people who define themselves to be "conservatives" want me to believe that our government and our military can not only "nation build" they can completely remap the geopolitics of the world. The same government they don't trust to provide health care. The same government they don't trust with their money. And for some strange reason, voters who call themselves "conservative" lap this foreign policy up like it is Scripture.

It is not credible on its face. I simply do not believe any right wing organisation that tells me this is necessary or even possible to do these things.
posted by three blind mice at 9:54 AM on February 1, 2006

Honestly, he lost me at "World War IV." I did read through the article. But for Christ's sake. If there were a World War III he'd be dead. I have no use for these wonks' self-flattering terms of art.

I do like the charming bit about the fifth column being the fifth pillar of jihad.
posted by furiousthought at 10:14 AM on February 1, 2006

Sorry Gyan, I never got past the Hoover Institute and to reading the article.
Wing nut propaganda production institutions disguised as think tanks tend to stop me from going further.
I see others had the same problem.
posted by nofundy at 10:20 AM on February 1, 2006

If there were a World War III he'd be dead. I have no use for these wonks' self-flattering terms of art.

To the neo-con, furiousthought, WWIII was the cold war - scored as a yet another victory for the West.
posted by three blind mice at 10:30 AM on February 1, 2006

I've been researching Islam....

I've come to the conclusion that, in fact, Islam itself is the problem. That the war on terrror must be a war on Islam. Mohammed founded a warrior religion that has more in common with Norse religion than it does with Christianity, Buddism, Taoism, Hinduism, Wicca, etc.

But the way to fight Islam is not with guns. The best way will be exposure to trade with with the west and more modern concepts and ideas.

Islam is very good at turning out warriors. We can't fight fire with fire, which is just dumb. Fire is best fought with water.

It would be more effective to send artists to fight than soldiers, as silly as that sounds. The exposure to new ideas would be more destructive than shooting them, which just seems to make more jihadists.

I'm still thinking about this. Obviously the idea isn't completely fleshed out.
posted by nyxxxx at 10:54 AM on February 1, 2006

nyxxxx, Mohammed was a trader by profession. Much like the corruption of Jesus' message by Christianity, it's a bit much to call the original Islam a "warrior religion."

In terms of later manifestations like Wahhabism (sp?), you are correct sir. Being invaded multiple times by "peaceful" Christians during the Crusades and the CIA (Iran, 1953) will do that to you.

Interesting link, if only to see how easily Rumsfeld is swayed by big words and footnotes, signifying nothing.
posted by bardic at 11:19 AM on February 1, 2006

It would be more effective to send artists to fight than soldiers, as silly as that sounds. The exposure to new ideas would be more destructive than shooting them, which just seems to make more jihadists.
It's been done, sort of. The Islamic world was once at the forefront of science (particularly mathematics and astronomy) and art. Then the mullahs, presumably recognizing the danger, shut the whole damn artistic enterprise down.

Which, I believe, supports your idea: They were frightened enough of new ideas to innoculate their world against them for several hundred years.

If you want to know how to destroy a culture, look to two things: What it fears, and what it desires. The mullahs fear knowledge, and whenever it's available (as a rule) a large subset of the population wants it. And populations always want the cool stuff people get to play with in other countries -- especially the young people. Fear and desire.
posted by lodurr at 11:28 AM on February 1, 2006

To the neo-con, furiousthought, WWIII was the cold war

Well, yes, and that too is a self-flattering term of art brought to life in the 1990's after about a year of people taking a deep breath from avoiding the real thing. Its use as such predates the end of the Cold War a bit, I'm pretty sure, but it didn't become very common until afterwards. It's a rhetorical slide from the already metaphorical term "Cold War" and the notion that to possess an adversary is to be at war! with them may be ridiculous but that's where it's going. Even among non-pundits. For example "send artists to fight than soldiers." That isn't what nyxxx means of course. But you go in with that mentality and it's no wonder you lose.
posted by furiousthought at 11:28 AM on February 1, 2006

Just to be clear. I'm not saying that he's right. I'm just saying that the ideas are interesting. As an analysis of our current situation it goes a bit deeper then terrorists are bad we should kill them. Terrorism has a context. In my opinion, understanding that context is the only way to make any progress in "TWOT". Killing terrorists obviously isn't going to get the job done, it just makes more terrorists.

In response to warbaby, just because what he is talking about doesn't fit the definition of netwar doesn't mean that it's not a more accurate appraisal of the situation then what the majority of Americans are operating under. Someone who has spent a great deal of time studying the middle east might be able to come up with a analysis I agree with more, and if you know of one I'd be happy to see a link to it.
posted by jefeweiss at 11:44 AM on February 1, 2006

There’s been more rational thought and insight in this thread than was in the piece.

/And none of that “crisp” b.s. I still can’t get over “proactive” from the 80s. 'Robust' was big for a bit too. I liked that one tho’. Always made me think of lunch. Like a ‘robust’ sandwich.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:50 AM on February 1, 2006

While it's true that Mohammed started out as a trader, he was an active participant and general in raids and wars against Jewish and pagan tribes in the area.

He gave up trading to become a warrior. Sura 9:29 of the Koran, "Fight those who believe not in God and in the last day, and who forbid not what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who do not practice the religion of truth from amongst those to whom the Book has been brought, until they pay the tribute by their hands and be as little ones."
posted by nyxxxx at 12:34 PM on February 1, 2006

A noteworthy bit that wasn't really fleshed out was what he mentioned about percentages. That is, "if only" x number of Moslems are Jihadis, and only a small fraction of them are suicide bombers...

In practice, however, this starts to matter. That is, take a particular country. Of the Moslems living in that country, you can subdivide them into smaller and smaller groups.

First the vast majority probably aren't militants, or are not personally inclined to militancy. The number who are militants is actually increased slightly by those who are militant for reasons *other* than Islam, such as tribal or ethnic reasons.

But of that small fraction who are militants, the greatest number are the "armchair" militants, who would never actually *do* anything. And while they might provide some degree of substantial support to other militants, they just can't bring themselves to do anything dangerous.

Then, subdividing further, of those who would do something violent or commit some act, most of them wouldn't dream of doing so outside of their own country, most are even hard-pressed to act outside of their own neighborhood.

So finally, we have the few left who are militant, willing to do something about it, and willing to go somewhere to do it. That is your basic number of combatants. Almost all of them young men, between the ages of 15 and 30.

But in addition, these young men need to be inspired, or recruited. They need to network with those who will train and otherwise support them. They need money and resources to go to where they wish to commit their acts.

In other words, it isn't easy to create an army of such men, and there is only a finite number of them available in an entire generation of Moslems.

Conversely, *fighting* them is terribly difficult as long as they stay in their home country. So the emphasis on fighting them requires that they be lured away, so that they can be easily identified, concentrated and killed. Culled, as it were, from the population as a whole.

Part and parcel to this is to make sure that only the "cream of the crop", those who are most dangerous, get through. If the path is too easy, many who would otherwise be permanently discouraged will become part of the fight--an unneccesary loss.

The bottom line is that, fourth-generation or not, the emphasis in war is to kill only those you have to kill, but otherwise take away the enemies' will to fight.
And if a "trap" destination can be arranged, luring the few serious combatants from a dozen nations to concentrate in one place, you succeed in freeing a dozen nations from their finite supply of fighters for a generation.
posted by kablam at 12:35 PM on February 1, 2006

nyxxxx, point taken. Well said and cited.
posted by bardic at 12:46 PM on February 1, 2006

Kablam - it’s pretty easy, from the opposite side in that scenario, to maneuver your opponent into expending far more resources than your side is.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:59 PM on February 1, 2006

jefeweiss: my point wasn't that he got a single definition wrong -- it was that Corn is mostly hiding behind obscure language and terms that he clearly doesn't understand. The article reads poorly because it's written poorly and there is muddled and unclear thinking behind it.

A comparison to popular misunderstandings is looking in the wrong direction. Corn should be compared to other knowledgeable people doing serious analysis. And, IMHO, he fails that test miserably. He's a hack publishing a nicely polished apple while hoping somebody will notice him and reward his suck with a plum appointment. As policy, he's spewing nonsense.

For a serious comparison, I suggest you look at the work of Ronfeldt and Arquilla on netwar, swarm tactics, and Ronfeldt's framework for social evolution.

The problem facing Islam is its failure to yet successfully incorporate institutional forms within their culture. The jihadis are engaged in a revitalization movement to restore the failed feudal / tribal rule of the caliphate. It's a futile and reactionary effort doomed to failure despite the amount of pain and suffering it's generating.

I wrote some views on this on MeCha here

Maybe you'd like to take a look and let know your thoughts. I'm quite interested in continuing this discussion.
posted by warbaby at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2006

The West at the moment is in a reactive position. Future success will necessitate taking the initiative, but it needs to be something other than an imitation of Jihadist techniques born out the specifics of their various situations. Success for the West will have to evolve from the context and acceptance of their power and desire to persevere.
posted by semmi at 12:30 AM on February 2, 2006

kablam: And if a "trap" destination can be arranged, luring the few serious combatants from a dozen nations to concentrate in one place, you succeed in freeing a dozen nations from their finite supply of fighters for a generation.

"Flypaper" theory? I do hope you're not serious.

All of htis is pretty high-concept, but it's just theory. In practice, things blow up, people die, infrastructures crumble, and public opinion gets messy messy messy.

A grand plan. But not really rooted in the experience of reality.
posted by lodurr at 5:56 AM on February 2, 2006

warbaby: .... doomed to failure ....

Not that I disagree with you, but in the short term they'll have a lot of results that look to them like success. So the road to ruin would be paved with good reinforcement.
posted by lodurr at 5:58 AM on February 2, 2006

I only just had time to finish this piece today. I have to agree for the most part with warbaby: there's a hella hand-waving going on, the citations are bull (especially the assertion that Iraq was "necessary" -- I only went along with the WMD bullshit, the other reasons were clearly insufficient by themselves), and the logic is self-justification rather than true argument. There are many more options than he presents, and the reductionist analysis of the Muslim world, in particular, is deliberately vague and at times laughable.

It's a shame these liars and bullshit artists will never get what they deserve.
posted by dhartung at 8:09 PM on February 2, 2006

Al Qaeda: 21st Century Ghost Dancers with Iraq as Wounded Knee.

An inexact, but tellling analogy.
posted by warbaby at 7:26 AM on February 3, 2006

Ergh. Well. I do reember that Louis L'Amour liked to say that all the ghost dancers were lacking was a Napoleon. (Or a Crazy Horse. Who had the bad taste to get assassinated before he could do that.) (Sitting Bull, while quite clever enough for that role, was too old and tired by then.)

I think there's a key difference between Al Qaeda and the Ghost Dance: The ghost dance was all about expecting some great supernatural force to come down and smite and destroy the infidels; Al Qaeda is all about doing the smiting.

But you're right, it's a really interesting analogy, especially when you consider the relative roles of, say, Sitting Bull and (off the top of my head) Yassir Arafat. Or, for that matter, between Sitting Bull and Big Foot. Big Foot was the hapless leader of the Miniconjou Lakota who were killed at Wounded Knee, but the crisis had been precipitated in large part by the assassination of Sitting Bull.

Sitting Bull, incidentally, didn't believe in the Ghost Dance, and only ever really bought into it as a pragmatically good thing for Indian unity. Bothering to assassinate him was a really silly and counter-productive thing to do, AFAICS. Maybe.

Or between W.T. Sherman (or any of the other generals who came west and were chaged by the fight) and Ariel Sharon.

Interesting and fertile ground, if what you'er interested in doing is learning new things.
posted by lodurr at 7:31 AM on February 5, 2006

« Older Mona lips synch   |   Wine Spodee-O-Dee, Drinkin' Wine Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments