Jay Reding.com

So, I’ve been playing around with the iPhone for a few hours now, placed a few calls, and used pretty much every feature. How is it after all that?

It still rocks. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than any other smartphone out there.

The call quality kicks my old HTC Windows Mobile phone’s ass – it’s quite clear and the reception seems solid. The browsing experience is second to none. The mobile version of Safari displays pages almost flawlessly, and the way in which the iPhone handles multiple windows is pretty ingenious. Over a Wi-Fi connection, the speech of the browser isn’t quite as fast as a desktop, but it’s good enough. The display quality is excellent, and the high pixel density (166 pixels/inch) makes reading text much, much, much easier than with any other smartphone I’ve used.

The interface is a joy. Multitouch just works – the way in which the scrolling responds to a flick of a finger is completely natural. Even though the iPhone uses a totally new interface convention, it’s completely intuitive. The keyboard has gotten some knocks, but once you adapt to it, you find that it’s quite accurate. It seems like the faster you type, the more accurate it becomes. Using it with either one hand or both is fairly easy. Is it capable of writing lengthy blog posts? Well, that would be tricky, but it’s certainly possible, and seems easier than with a conventional smartphone keyboard with physical keys.

The display is incredible. The surface of the iPhone tends to get smudges all over it, but they’re invisible when the display is active. To my surprise, the default brightness isn’t even close to the highest setting either. The display must have some powerful backlighting. The display shows video in shockingly high clarity for such a small screen — even though it’s only a 480×320 screen it seems to have excellent resolution. The video player automatically adjusts the image to fit the screen — this can be disabled by a virtual button press. Battlestar Galactica looked great on the iPhone’s clear display, and even the visually complex space scenes displayed clearly. There was no ghosting or artifacting at all – the motion was crisp and clear.

So, what are the flaws of the iPhone? The flaws aren’t in the hardware, but the software. Which means that the next software revision can easily make the iPhone truly great.

First is the lack of cut/copy/paste. It makes blogging on the iPhone nearly impossible. Getting that to work with the iPhone’s UI would be difficult, but not impossible. In my mind, that’s the biggest flaw of the iPhone in terms of using it as a mobile blogging station. Highlighting text shouldn’t be that big of a problem — already the phone seems to magnify the area under your finger under certain circumstances, and that seems like it would be accurate enough to select text on a web page or in an email. Adding clipboard operations, even if slightly cumbersome, would make the iPhone an ideal mobile blogging platform.

The next gripe is the speed of the AT&T EDGE network — EDGE is slow. It may be efficient for battery life, but it’s still slow. The best way to make it speedier? It would be nice to have a setting in Safari to automatically disable images while on EDGE – that way you wouldn’t be waiting on all that data and pages could pop up much faster. When you’re on EDGE, it’s nice to have the full browsing experience, but it isn’t essential. A just-the-basics mode for mobile travel would be nice.

There are some apps that would be nice to have — such as a Todo application that syncs with Mail, Flash support for the mobile Safari (I needs me badgers), and support for Google Docs (unfortunately, Google Docs doesn’t work on the iPhone, which was a bit of a letdown. No doubt Google and Apple are working on that one). None of those are crucial to the iPhone’s success, but they’d definitely be nice.

My other big pet peeve, and the one thing I miss about Windows Mobile — I want the iPhone to have a home screen that shows my calendar events for the day without having to do anything else with the phone. Yes, you can program alarms, but that’s a workaround. The Home Screen is visually simple and has that spare Apple beauty, but a smartphone needs more info to be available without having to touch anything. That’s the only part of Windows Mobile I miss.

Finally, it would be nice be able to upload photos to sites like Flickr or be able to place images on your blog. The iPhone’s filesystem isn’t visible, but it shouldn’t be difficult to make it so that a file input lets you select an image from the image catalog.

Is the iPhone worth the steep price tag? If you want (or need) a smartphone, the iPhone makes sense. A plain old Windows Mobile phone can be a couple hundred dollars, and when you figure the cost of the smartphone aspect of the iPhone with the iPod aspect, the price of the iPhone isn’t extravagant. The iPhone offers a lot of functionality that’s incredibly convenient to have, as well as being the coolest iPod to date. Yes, it sucks being tied to one network (which will only last as long as the exclusivity deal with AT&T does), but that’s the nature of the rather dysfunctional American cellular market. Apple has already made working with activation infinitely easier than before, which has now set the bar for the rest of the industry. The cost of the iPhone data plan is perfectly reasonable for providing you with unlimited data and a decent number of cellular minutes and text messages.

All in all, the iPhone was a hefty purchase, but it is worth the cost. It’s a pain to break out the laptop all the time when you just want to check IMDB for the name of that one actress who was in that one movie that completely escapes your mind. It’s nice to be able to get directions to the closest pizza joint while waiting in line at the drug store. And since the iPod has already become a fixture in just about everyone’s lives, it’s hardly necessary to sell anyone on having a library of thousands of songs available anywhere.

The iPhone isn’t perfect, but it’s worth the considerable hype. It may not be something that causes you to drop your current cellular provider right away, but if your contract is up in the next few months, it’s worth considering making the switch. Apple has a reputation for making great devices that work naturally — and the iPhone is the Mac of cellular phones. That’s what Apple needed it to be, and it that’s why it will be a resounding success for them.

UPDATE: I should mention, I have had the machine hang on me once. A quick hard reset fixed the problem, but like any just-released piece of software, there are a few bugs around. It’s not enough to be really concerning, but it does indicate that Apple will likely be pushing out some software updates in the next few months which may add new features as well as bug fixes.

I also forgot to mention the Visual Voicemail feature — that is a godsend. No more going through all your voice messages to get to the one you want, just select it and listen. It’s why the iPhone requires a separate data plan, but it’s one of those features that you wish every cellphone had.

Yes, I’m insane.

I’m currently in line for the iPhone, with about 5 and a half hours to go before actually buying on. Word is that James Lileks will be showing up here this afternoon.

So far, I’d estimate about 60-70 people are in line in front of the Apple Store, which proves that there’s no shortage of nerds like me with far too much time on our hands.

Then again, I have my Criminal Procedure book with me, which means that I’m actually getting something done. However, the next time I decide to wait in line for some big gadget, I’m definitely bringing a chair…

UPDATE: Here’s a view of the line, taken a few moments ago:

Salam Fayyad, the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority is reaching out to Israel in trying to stabilize the West Bank. The history of this conflict has been full of false promises of hope, but there is reason to have cautious optimism that Fayyad is willing to engage in the long and hard work of making Palestine a livable place again.

The Palestinians have to dismantle their institutionalized death cult and start putting their resources together in building their society up rather than trying to tear down Israel. Palestine has been drained of civil society, devastated by war, and the children of Palestine have been turned into pawns in a futile war of extermination. Prime Minister Fayyad has much work to do to make Palestine a place of peace and prosperity rather than a pit of devastation and despair.

However, the schism between Hamas and Fatah is an opportunity as well as a crisis. Hamas’ popularity is plummeting and their dreams of a Gaza made in the image of the Taliban’s Afghanistan will only hurt them all the more. The Palestinians are finally realizing that the people who have been keeping them down all these years are not the Israelis, but the cynical Arab nations who have been using them as mere pawns on their proxy war against Israel.

The prospect of peace will remain elusive for some time, but Fayyad has so far shown a good-faith effort to make real change. He will have many challenges ahead of him, but if he can act with strength and determination, he has a chance to found a new Palestine from the ashes of the old.

J.D. Johannes, recently returned from a three-month embed in Iraq has a deconstruction of Lugar’s Iraq “plan”:

Lugar is saying, “Because we lack the will to win, let us make a decision not to win, and thus reassert our will.” This is particularly untimely now, when our military has accomplished one of the most stunning successes of this prolonged struggle.

Alexander Hamilton’s analysis on much the same question, which preceded Lugar’s caveat by more than two centuries, is worth noting as well. Describing the subordinate role of Congress to the executive in foreign policy, Hamilton wrote in Federalist 75:

“Accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics; a steady and systematic adherence to the same views; a nice and uniform sensibility to national character; decision, secrecy, and dispatch, are incompatible with the genius of a body so variable and so numerous.”

The Petraeus surge, authorized by the executive branch, was not “improvised.” Its fundamental planning dates from early in Donald Rumsfeld’s stint as secretary of Defense, where it was developed as a contingency plan should a “light footprint” approach fail. It deserves its day in the sun.

The “light footprint” approach had its rationales, but that approach failed. The “surge” approach is actually working so far, and many do exactly what it is supposed to do: give the Iraqis breathing room so that further political and economic initiatives can move forwards. The Anbar Awakening is probably the most significant shift in this war. By having Iraqis stand up to fight AQI, the terrorists are rapidly running out of hiding places. The “surge” won’t end the war on its own, but it will set the conditions by which the Iraqis can achieve the stability that the terrorists have denied them for the past few years.

The problem with Lugar’s “plan” is that there is no plan. He sets out four goals, then says we should take an action which will clearly set all four back. There is no alternative to fighting in Iraq because that’s where al-Qaeda has engaged us. The argument that there’s some other viable alternative falls flat because no one seems to know what that viable alternative is.

At the end of the day, one thing is certain: if we leave Iraq, we’ll be forced by events to return. If Iraq becomes a haven for terrorism, which is almost certainly will, it would be profoundly irresponsible not to do something about it. Air power can’t fight terrorists who hide in civilian population centers — fighting terrorism requires boots on the ground and networks of intelligence coming directly from the locals. That can’t happen if we’re isolating ourselves from the Iraqi population. You can’t develop intelligence from “mega bases” well outside the people you need to be developing contacts with.

Congress has a subordinate role in foreign policy precisely because the Founders wanted America to speak with one voice, as Hamilton made clear. With all due respect to Senator Lugar, he has no plan, and he can’t support his own goals with his own policy preferences. His plan is simply incoherent, and the fact that he cannot clearly tie in the goal of constraining al-Qaeda with the means of withdrawing from Iraq is easily explained — there’s no logical connection between the two.

RealClearPolitics has a transcript of Senator Lugar’s Iraq speech on the Senate floor. The problem with Senator Lugar’s ideas is that they’re simply incoherent — the goals he professes to support would be actively undermined by a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq. It’s bad enough that Senator Lugar has the audacity to sit in judgment on the “surge” when it’s only now begun to take effect, but the dichotomy between his suggested course of action and his long-term foreign policy goals is massive.

Lugar argues:

To determine our future course, we should separate our emotions and frustrations about Iraq from a sober assessment of our fundamental national security goals. In my judgment, we should be concerned with four primary objectives:

First, we have an interest in preventing Iraq or any piece of its territory from being used as a safe haven or training ground for terrorists or as a repository or assembly point for weapons of mass destruction.

Certainly, the Senator is right about that. That is the first and foremost goal of the operation in Iraq. The problem is that such a goal cannot be met without significant numbers of boots on the ground.

You can’t do counter-terrorism from 35,000 feet in the air. Effective counter-terrorism requires the kind of intelligence that can only be gotten from talking to people and learning how to distinguish the non-combatant population from the terrorists. A smart missile, no matter how smart, doesn’t know the difference between a compound of AQI operatives and a room full of children. The only way to prevent Iraq from being a safe haven for terrorists is to cultivate the web of relationships on the ground that lets us identify and eliminate terrorist cells. A withdrawal from Iraq — even one that leaves a residual force behind, won’t cut it. We need to develop intelligence in every community and be able to act on that intelligence immediately. We barely have enough manpower to do it now — how can we be expected to pull it off with half the number of troops or less?

Second, we have an interest in preventing the disorder and sectarian violence in Iraq from upsetting wider regional stability. The consequences of turmoil that draws neighboring states into a regional war could be grave. Such turmoil could topple friendly governments, expand destabilizing refugee flows, close the Persian Gulf to shipping traffic, or destroy key oil production or transportation facilities, thus diminishing the flow of oil from the region with disastrous results for the world economy.

Again, the Senator is right. But how will we do that when we have nothing more than political leverage? The only way to stop terrorist organizations like the Jaish-al-Mahdi and AQI is to neutralize them with force. They’re not inclined to peaceably give up their terrorist goals, and no amount of diplomatic or political pressure is going to work against them.

Ideally, we’d have a strong and stable Iraqi government to deal with them, but we don’t have that yet, and it’s going to take more time and patience to get there. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have the patience to see that through, and Senator Lugar’s ill-advised comments only add fuel to the fire.

Third, we have an interest in preventing Iranian domination of the region. The fall of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni government opened up opportunities for Iran to seek much greater influence in Iraq and in the broader Middle East. An aggressive Iran would pose serious challenges for Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other Arab governments. Iran is pressing a broad agenda in the Middle East with uncertain consequences for weapons proliferation, terrorism, the security of Israel, and other U.S. interests. Any course we adopt should consider how it would impact the regional influence of Iran.

A US withdrawal would allow Iran to continue to destabilize Iraq. If Iraq falls apart, and without us it would only be a matter of time, Moqtada al-Sadr and his band of Iranian-backed thugs would almost certainly take over a large swathe of Iraq. President Ahmadinejad has stated that he wants to form a Shi’ite crescent from Iran to Palestine, and us leaving Iraq makes that much more likely than less.

Again, Senator Lugar is good at identifying the problems, but all his solution does is make them infinitely worse.

Fourth, we have an interest in limiting the loss of U.S. credibility in the region and throughout the world as a result of our Iraq mission. Some loss of confidence in the United States has already occurred, but our subsequent actions in Iraq may determine how we are viewed for a generation.

And that loss of credibility would be dramatically greater when al-Qaeda can claim without any hyperbole that they brought the world’s superpower to its knees. A withdrawal from Iraq would send an unmistakable sign of weakness that every hostile power would exploit for years to come. The lessons of the Vietnam War make that clear — and in a world of terrorism and WMDs, having hostile regimes feeling unfettered in their ability to kick the US around is fatal.

This is what Senator Lugar calls a “sustainable” military posture:

Our security interests call for a downsizing and re-deployment of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East. Numerous locations for temporary or permanent military bases have been suggested, including Kuwait or other nearby states, the Kurdish territories, or defensible locations in Iraq outside of urban areas. All of these options come with problems and limitations. But some level of American military presence in Iraq would improve the odds that we could respond to terrorist threats, protect oil flows, and help deter a regional war. It would also reassure friendly governments that the United States is committed to Middle East security. A re-deployment would allow us to continue training Iraqi troops and delivering economic assistance, but it would end the U.S. attempt to interpose ourselves between Iraqi sectarian factions.

Again, we’re fighting an unconventional war. We need to know the local populations intimately in order to know who the bad guys are. We can’t do that from Kurdistan, Kuwait, or even outside those neighborhoods. We need to be closer to the Iraqi people, not farther away. We can’t achieve the very goals that Senator Lugar finds necessary under his own plan.

Here’s what Lugar calls for on a wider strategic front:

In this era, the United States cannot afford to be on a defensive footing indefinitely. It is essential that as we attempt to re-position ourselves from our current military posture in Iraq, we launch a multi-faceted diplomatic offensive that pushes adversarial states and terrorist groups to adjust to us. The best counter to perceptions that we have lost credibility in Iraq would be a sustained and ambitious set of initiatives that repairs alliances and demonstrates our staying power in the Middle East.

The Iraq Study Group report recommended such a diplomatic offensive, stating “all key issues in the Middle East – the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism, are inextricably linked.” The report stressed that diplomacy aimed at solving key regional issues would “help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and interests, and improve America’s global image.”

A diplomatic offensive is likely to be easier in the context of a tactical drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. A drawdown would increase the chances of stimulating greater economic and diplomatic assistance for Iraq from multi-lateral organizations and European allies, who have sought to limit their association with an unpopular war.

I’m sorry, but this is the same old mealy-mouthed bullshit. Who here really believes that a “diplomatic offensive” scares the mullahs in Tehran in the least? Because anyone who thinks that true is a sucker.

Our problems are only partially based on poor diplomacy. The European Union is absolutely feckless and have economic ties to Tehran that give them reason of self-interest not to upset the status quo. Even when that status quo is intolerable. Furthermore, the European left has been infected with a vicious anti-Semitism that means that some of them wouldn’t mind of Israel were “counterbalanced” by a nuclear Iran — even if that almost certainly would mean a nuclear arms race in the region.

What we need is more than diplomacy, it’s about talking softly while carrying a big stick. We have to make it quite clear that all options are on the table, and that includes the assassination of the leadership of hostile countries, economic sanctions, and targeted attacks against economic interests vital to those countries. Damascus and Tehran have nothing to fear from a “diplomatic offensive” but they are scared shitless than their own restive populations will turn against their autocratic rule. Instead of trying to talk with regimes that hate us and have nothing but contempt for our weakness, we should be doing whatever we can to dispel the idea that we’re a weak power. A withdrawal from Iraq — especially when Iraq is part of a US-Iranian proxy war is like putting a giant KICK ME sign on this nation — and Damascus and Tehran would certainly be less willing to compromise if they know that we don’t have the guts to fight the regional war in the Middle East that they’re already well on their way to sparking.

As usual, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis rears its ugly head. It seems like every foreign policy expert thinks that solving the unsolvable is the key to Middle East peace. If that’s the case, let’s go the Curtis LeMay route and nuke the Middle East into a glass parking lot. The simple reality of the situation is there is nothing that anyone can do to fix the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. It is not a diplomatically solvable problem. The only people who can fix it are the Palestinians, and they’re unlikely to do so until things continue to spiral out of control for a much longer time. Trying to make that issue the cornerstone of every single plan in the Middle East is idiotic and counterproductive. It simply justifies the Arab tactic of using the Palestinians as an excuse for not doing anything. Iraq has nothing to do with Israel, nor with Palestine. Trying to solve that problem as a precondition for solving problems that are far more pressing is an affectation of a foreign policy elite who have bought into the Arab cult of victimhood and who seem pathologically unable to comprehend that the Palestinians are being used as a convenient excuse to justify keeping the autocratic status quo in the Middle East in place.

Senator Lugar tries to draw a “third way” between withdrawal and staying the course. He has failed. His own goals are destroyed by his suggested policies, and if he really believes that the four goals he sets out in his speech are truly important, then withdrawal is the single most irresponsible thing we can do.

ADDENDUM: Some time in the next few days, I hope to draw up a more realistic plan for victory in Iraq, one that recognizes many of the same factors that Senator Lugar does, but suggests ways in which the United States can actually achieve those goals rather than take actions that will weaken the United States for decades to come.

David Kilcullen writes in Small Wars Journal on what is going on with the surge. Kilcullen is an advisor to the Multinational Forces – Iraq, and provides the kind of explanation that the media has thus far failed to provide:

The meaning of that comment should be clear by now to anyone tracking what is happening in Iraq. On June 15th we kicked off a major series of division-sized operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. As General Odierno said, we have finished the build-up phase and are now beginning the actual “surge of operations”. I have often said that we need to give this time. That is still true. But this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.

These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we’re doing in Baghdad and what’s happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don’t plan to leave these areas once they’re secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have “gone quiet” as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action.

It’s still going to be a lengthy and difficult process. For one, the Iraqi Police aren’t nearly as well-prepared as the Iraqi Army, so the US will need to provide some significant assistance to get them into a position where they can be effective. Right now the military operation in Diyala Province continues as part of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which is an operation designed to entrap and destroy the al-Qaeda members who fled Baghdad during the early phases of the surge.

The difference between this operation and previous operations is that it used to be that one terrorist haven would be cleared out and then the terrorists would relocate and set up shop in another. This isn’t happening anymore. For one, al-Anbar is much less hospitable to AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) than it has been in the past. The local Sunnis are sick and tired of being used as human shields, and the failed “Islamic State of Iraq” only added to the miseries of the people there. The ridiculous fatwas of the local AQI muftis (such as not putting tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag since tomatoes are feminine in Arabic and cucumbers are male) only further inflamed tensions. In recent months, local tribal leaders have been ejecting al-Qaeda fighters.

This is notable, because it forces those fleeing coalition operations in Baghdad away from the west and al-Anbar and towards the northeast, in Diyala Province — specifically Baqubah. However, just as they’ve fled there, AQI fighters have found themselves walking into a trap — and now Arrowhead Ripper is springing that trap. Some of the heaviest fighting in the war so far is now going on in Diyala, but the result will be a much weakened presence of AQI not only in Diyala, but across Iraq.

Kilcullen continues:

(c.) Being fluid, the enemy can control his loss rate and therefore can never be eradicated by purely enemy-centric means: he can just go to ground if the pressure becomes too much. BUT, because he needs the population to act in certain ways in order to survive, we can asphyxiate him by cutting him off from the people. And he can’t just “go quiet” to avoid that threat. He has either to come out of the woodwork, fight us and be destroyed, or stay quiet and accept permanent marginalization from his former population base. That puts him on the horns of a lethal dilemma (which warms my heart, quite frankly, after the cynical obscenities these irhabi gang members have inflicted on the innocent Iraqi non-combatant population). That’s the intent here.

(d.) The enemy may not be identifiable, but the population is. In any given area in Iraq, there are multiple threat groups but only one, or sometimes two main local population groups. We could do (and have done, in the past) enormous damage to potential supporters, “destroying the haystack to find the needle”, but we don’t need to: we know who the population is that we need to protect, we know where they live, and we can protect them without unbearable disruption to their lives. And more to the point, we can help them protect themselves, with our forces and ISF in overwatch.

These two factors are crucial. Al-Qaeda can move around, but they’re more like parasites than predators. Their tactics are predicated on being able to blend in with the surrounding population, either through bribery or intimidation. If that fails, they can’t blend in and then US forces can quickly identify and destroy them. That’s the problem that al-Qaeda is having in al-Anbar now that the tribal leaders — the glue that holds al-Anbar together, rejects them. There are only a limited number of places where AQI can run — the Kurds are too strong in the north and the Shi’a are too powerful in the south. If this strategy works — and there are indication that it is working, AQI is going to face a situation where there is no room left to hide.

I’ve decided to get an iPhone.

Not only that, but I’m planning on getting one on opening day.

I’m that nuts.

The big question has been what kind of data plan the iPhone requires. I currently pay $39.99 for my 450 voice minutes (with rollover) and another $19.99 for unlimited data for my smartphone. (And believe me, having Google Maps makes that bill well worth it. I’d quite literally be lost without it.) I’d maybe consider paying more for an iPhone, but much more would be a dealbreaker.

And thankfully, the plans for the iPhone are exactly the same as what I’m getting now. I’ve been happy with Cingular’s service so far. I do get some dropped calls, but only rarely. The billing has always been straightforward, and the rollover is nice for those of us who almost never use more than a couple of hundred minutes a month. Paying $20/month for unlimited data really isn’t bad – yes, AT&T’s EDGE network is slow, but for reading the news and getting email, it’s just fine.

Apple could have made the iPhone prohibitively expensive, but the plans released for it are quite reasonable. AT&T could have burned the people who would get an iPhone even if they had to pay through the nose (or some other orifice) for one. Instead, they have a set of plans and an activation system that’s groundbreakingly easy.

I used to think Apple was a dumb company that made ugly computers and would be out of business before the turn of the millennium. Now I’m a bloody Apple fanboy with a MacBook, and iMac, three iPods of varying size, and soon will have an iPhone. Apple knows how to create an experience and make products that people want to buy.

Of course, that means that I’m going to have to get one now. Damn you Apple and AT&T!