an in-between move

Cool kids read The Bellman.


Don't read this blog!

I mean, thanks for dropping by my little corner of the blogospheric backwaters, but the blog you should be reading is The Bellman. The stuff I post there is much, much less likely to be imbued with dormitive powers.


[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

Literally an "in-between move". A move in a tactical sequence is called a zwischenzug* when it does not relate directly to the tactical motif in operation. |source|

image copyright TWIC

From this position, black played a zwischenzug: 19…d5
(Linares 2002, 1-0)


about your blogger

David Rowland studies philosophy at the University of Illinois - Urbana / Champaign, where he's an active member of the Graduate Employees Organization. He used to play a lot of chess, but wasn't all that good. He has a blog. And email.



Fun facts from the exit polls
More criticism of the UFCW
Fish on!
News from the front
If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing t...
Why art thou disquieted in me?
Tips for exporting democracy, cont
At least he's honest about it
Today's fun fact brought to you by the American He...
This week's WMD Round Up


error log

January 2004  
February 2004  
March 2004  
April 2004  
May 2004  
June 2004  
July 2004  
August 2004  
September 2004  
October 2004  
November 2004  
December 2004  
January 2005  
February 2005  
March 2005  
April 2005  
May 2005  
June 2005  
July 2005  
August 2005  
September 2005  
October 2005  
November 2005  
December 2005  


$zwichenzug$ sell-out zone





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.

Union Label

Direct Action
Gets the Goods!


some folks I know

Mark Dilley
a daily dose of architecture
Safety Neal
January Girl
mimi jingcha
Hop, Skip, Jump
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian


some blogs I read

strip mining for whimsy
It's Matt's World
School of Blog
Fall of the State
Dru Blood
Echidne of the Snakes
Colossal Waste of Bandwidth
Running from the Thought Police
Bionic Octopus


some philosoblogs

Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Working Life
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
Eric Lee


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Matthew Yglesias
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
The Volokh Conspiracy


some other links

Rule 33
This Week in Chess
War Nerd
National Priorities Project
Bible Gateway
Internet Archive
A Weekly Dose of Architecture
Orsinal: Morning Sunshine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Safety Sign Builder
Get Your War On


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
Tiffany's argument for strong internalism
Internalism v. Externalism
What do internalists believe anyway?
Rationalism and internalism
The experimental method in philosophy
Advertising to children
On moral skepticism
A linguistic argument
More on Williams
Williams on reasons
General and particular
Normativity and morality
Political intuitions
What it is, what it was, and what it shall be
Objectivity and morality
Thinking revolution
Abortion and coercion
Moore on torture
On the phenomenology of deliberation
Even more Deliberation Day
more Deliberation Day
Deliberation Day run-down
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge, cont.
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge
Every shepherd is an abomination
Droppin' H-bombs
ad hominem

Wednesday, February 11, 2004


The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil

This morning a suicide bomber killed 47 Iraqis standing in line at an Army Recruitment Center in Baghdad. Yesterday, a similar bombing took the lives of 55 Iraqis at a police station. The LA Times reports that, "more than 190 Iraqis have been killed in the last two weeks in suicide bombings directed at police and political figures."

All this is happening in the context of a new American strategy for the pacification of Iraq. That strategy, according to the NY Times, is to close down most U.S. bases in central Baghdad and withdraw to the outskirts of the city. American soldiers will get rid of their humvees, stick to the tanks, and count on Iraqi police and civil defense forces to handle everything except for big emergencies.

For this plan to work, Iraqis have got to be willing to join the police and civil defense forces. But if attacks like those of recent days continue, they won't be. Take a look at what an Iraqi man wounded in today's attack had to say:
Tearful and angry, Jamouri complained how the U.S.-led occupation authorities boast about the high number of Iraqis signing up for the new army and police but fail to protect them from guerrilla attacks.

"I hate the Americans. I hate them," said Jamouri, 28. "They did nothing to protect us. They don't protect Muslims."

Like many Iraqis, Jamouri thought the U.S.-led invasion which toppled Saddam Hussein in April would ease many of the hardships suffered under his iron-fisted rule.

Facing high unemployment in postwar Iraq, Jamouri decided to sign up for the new Iraqi army, and he couldn't wait to start work on Wednesday.

"We were many brothers and sisters. We were poor. I was in bad shape. I thought I could get work in the new army and protect and defend my country's honor," he said. "How can I protect my country when I can't even get protection?" Source: CNN

The standard Bush Administration script is to say that suicide attacks like these are "cowardly" and a sign of "desperation" and that the enemy's desperation is evidence that the insurgency is on its last legs. But the attacks don't seem at all desperate to me. They seem like a continuation of the same strategy that successfully drove out the U.N. and the other NGOs.

You get a more balanced view from the troops on the ground. Responding to today's attacks, General Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations chief in Baghdad, said, "This could be ... part of the ongoing pattern of intimidation we've seen of late…We have stated numerous times that in the lead-up to governance, there could be an uptick in the violence."

That's still too optimistic, but it's far closer to a realistic assessment of the threat. Hopefully, the opinions of the real decision makers are closer to those of Klimmitt than their rhetoric indicates. That is, hopefully they're still lying to us.


Update: 3:30p.m.

Tracked down a few comments from Administration higher ups regarding Tuesday's attack. Still looking for the full transcript. Here's what I've found so far:
"It's impossible to defend in every location against every conceivable kind of attack at every time of the day or night," US Defence Secretary Ronald Rumsfeld told reporters in Washington after Tuesday's blast.

At the same briefing, Air Force General Richard Myers, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was optimistic about security despite the attack.

"We continue to be optimistic about the situation on the ground in Iraq," he said, adding there had been "a lot of success" in bringing stability and security to Iraq ahead of the June 30 target date for handing power to an Iraqi government. Source: Reuters

Update: More from the briefing (Source: Reuters)

Still no transcript, but here are some Rumsfeldisms from the briefing:
"That does not mean that there will not be people that are killed. I mean, look at any city on the face of the earth. Everyone's against homicide. And yet in every...major city on the face of the earth, homicides occur every week. Hundreds occur every year in every city.

"Now, why if we have all those policemen, why if we have everyone against homicides, do they still occur? The answer is because human beings are human beings."

Next, Rumsfeld was asked whether he personally had beleived the pre-war claim that Iraq could launch a missile attack on Britain in 45 minutes. Rumsfeld said, "I don't remember the statement being made, to be perfectly honest."

Whew! At least we can take comfort in the fact that they're still lying.

+ - + - + main + - + - +