Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Okay, Where Are They?: I'm looking... I'm searching... I'm not seeing.
I checked CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox News. Nothing.
I checked the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Zip.
Where the HELL are the anti-war protests? Seems like four days after the Russians invaded the souvereign state of Georgia, the anti-war protests would be all over the news! Russian embassies and consulates should be under siege by mobs of angry anti-warriors!
Where are the "No Blood for Georgian Oil" banners?
Where are the "Out of Georgia NOW!" signs?
Where are the marches and die-ins?
Oh, wait. I guess those things only happen when the U.S. removes a murderous, blood-thirsty dictator that slaughtered Kurds with chemical weapons and Shiite Muslims with his Sunni army. Only when the U.S. deposes a thug that attacks Kuwait and Iran and threatens Saudi Arabia. Anti-war protests are only apparently appropriate when the U.S. eliminates a tyrant and his two murderous sons who raped, tortured, and murdered women for fun!
Yep. It's apparently totally cool with the anti-war crowd if Russia crushes a democratic form of government. Guess that means that war can be okay once in a while as long as it's by a country the anti-war crowd likes.....
I checked CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox News. Nothing.
I checked the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Zip.
Where the HELL are the anti-war protests? Seems like four days after the Russians invaded the souvereign state of Georgia, the anti-war protests would be all over the news! Russian embassies and consulates should be under siege by mobs of angry anti-warriors!
Where are the "No Blood for Georgian Oil" banners?
Where are the "Out of Georgia NOW!" signs?
Where are the marches and die-ins?
Oh, wait. I guess those things only happen when the U.S. removes a murderous, blood-thirsty dictator that slaughtered Kurds with chemical weapons and Shiite Muslims with his Sunni army. Only when the U.S. deposes a thug that attacks Kuwait and Iran and threatens Saudi Arabia. Anti-war protests are only apparently appropriate when the U.S. eliminates a tyrant and his two murderous sons who raped, tortured, and murdered women for fun!
Yep. It's apparently totally cool with the anti-war crowd if Russia crushes a democratic form of government. Guess that means that war can be okay once in a while as long as it's by a country the anti-war crowd likes.....
Labels: anti-war protestors, anti-war protests, Bush, Georgia, invasion, Peace, Putin, Russia, Russian Military, War, War in Georgia, War in Iraq
Friday, December 28, 2007
bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda, and Mullah Omar; Apostates, Blasphemers, Usurpers, Miscreants: It can no longer be denied or ignored that Usama bin-Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda as a whole, and Mullah Omar are apostates, blasphemers, usurpers, and criminal miscreants.
This small group are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims either directly or through their brainwashing of innocent Muslims who go out and murder in their names.
bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar have turned their backs on true Islam (apostacy) and are pursuing their own courses of power (usurpation)and influence. Worse, they use the words of The Prophet and Allah (blasphemy)to justify their murderous war against Muslims. Using the words of The Prophet, they teach innocent Muslims to commint suicide in direct contradiction to the Koran.
This so-called "jihad" bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, Omar, and al-Qaeda are waging is killing Muslims every day. The jihad, which is more of a world-wide killing spree than an actual "jihad", is damaging Islam and defaming the words of The Prophet and Allah.
Worse, the jihad is failing on two significant points. First, the jihad is specifically failing in Iraq where jihadists are only killing Muslims and are also being defeated on the field of battle by the Iraqi and American military forces. Second, they have lost the popular support of true Muslims. True Believers have come to understand the jihad is illegal, that Muslims are the ones losing their lives, and that the world is repulsed by the vision of Islam glorified by bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar.
Jihad has failed! It is time for an appropriate influential Islamic authority to declare the "jihad" illegal and bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar to be guilty of apostacy. They need to be stopped through the issuance of an authoritative Fatwa that will be respected and enforced by true Believers.
The time is now!
This small group are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims either directly or through their brainwashing of innocent Muslims who go out and murder in their names.
bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar have turned their backs on true Islam (apostacy) and are pursuing their own courses of power (usurpation)and influence. Worse, they use the words of The Prophet and Allah (blasphemy)to justify their murderous war against Muslims. Using the words of The Prophet, they teach innocent Muslims to commint suicide in direct contradiction to the Koran.
This so-called "jihad" bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, Omar, and al-Qaeda are waging is killing Muslims every day. The jihad, which is more of a world-wide killing spree than an actual "jihad", is damaging Islam and defaming the words of The Prophet and Allah.
Worse, the jihad is failing on two significant points. First, the jihad is specifically failing in Iraq where jihadists are only killing Muslims and are also being defeated on the field of battle by the Iraqi and American military forces. Second, they have lost the popular support of true Muslims. True Believers have come to understand the jihad is illegal, that Muslims are the ones losing their lives, and that the world is repulsed by the vision of Islam glorified by bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar.
Jihad has failed! It is time for an appropriate influential Islamic authority to declare the "jihad" illegal and bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar to be guilty of apostacy. They need to be stopped through the issuance of an authoritative Fatwa that will be respected and enforced by true Believers.
The time is now!
Labels: apostate, bin Laden, blasphemer, Iraq, Islam, jihadists, miscreant, Mullah, Omar, Prophet, Qaeda, Qaida, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Sunday, November 18, 2007
New Effort to Defeat U.S. Military: A new effort has been launched to defeat the U.S. military in Iraq. An attack has been launched against the supply lines that support the troops in combat.
The goal is to strangle the supply flow to our troops, halting the flow of food, bullets, bombs, and protective vehicles. The off-shoot to this strategy to beat the U.S. military may be the shutdown of the entire Pentagon structure and the paralysis of the entire Department of Defense.
Al-Qaeda? No. Iran? No. Muqtuda al-Sadr? No. The newly implemented strategy is brought to you by the Democrats in the U.S. Congress who desperately want to see the U.S. military defeated in Iraq.
They have staked their entire political future on "the war is lost", and "there is no military solutions", and "we have no business in the middle of a civil war". Now that it looks like our military is kicking the collective asses of the insurgent forces, the Democrats have moved in with their "strangle the supply flow and retreat" strategy. I might add that it's a strategy that Al-Qaeda and Iran would dearly love to be able to employ themselves.
The Democrat Party leadership has finally put it on the table in easy-to-understand terms: "we- the U.S. military- are going to quit this war regardless of the fact that it means a victory for Al-Qaeda and Iran. We don't care about any future ramifications from surrendering and retreating from the battlefield under fire, it's more important that George Soros and MoveOn.org are happy."
So there it is. When you hear a Pelosi or Reid or Murtha say "we support the troops", you now know that means George Soros' and MoveOn.org's troops. They DO NOT SUPPORT the U.S. military and couldn't care less if they destroy the entire Pentagon in their haste to surrender in Iraq.
Yep. Roosevelt and Truman would be proud.
The goal is to strangle the supply flow to our troops, halting the flow of food, bullets, bombs, and protective vehicles. The off-shoot to this strategy to beat the U.S. military may be the shutdown of the entire Pentagon structure and the paralysis of the entire Department of Defense.
Al-Qaeda? No. Iran? No. Muqtuda al-Sadr? No. The newly implemented strategy is brought to you by the Democrats in the U.S. Congress who desperately want to see the U.S. military defeated in Iraq.
They have staked their entire political future on "the war is lost", and "there is no military solutions", and "we have no business in the middle of a civil war". Now that it looks like our military is kicking the collective asses of the insurgent forces, the Democrats have moved in with their "strangle the supply flow and retreat" strategy. I might add that it's a strategy that Al-Qaeda and Iran would dearly love to be able to employ themselves.
The Democrat Party leadership has finally put it on the table in easy-to-understand terms: "we- the U.S. military- are going to quit this war regardless of the fact that it means a victory for Al-Qaeda and Iran. We don't care about any future ramifications from surrendering and retreating from the battlefield under fire, it's more important that George Soros and MoveOn.org are happy."
So there it is. When you hear a Pelosi or Reid or Murtha say "we support the troops", you now know that means George Soros' and MoveOn.org's troops. They DO NOT SUPPORT the U.S. military and couldn't care less if they destroy the entire Pentagon in their haste to surrender in Iraq.
Yep. Roosevelt and Truman would be proud.
Labels: Congress, defeat, Democrat Party, Democrats, Funding, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Pentagon, Reid, surrender, War in Iraq
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Democrats and the War in Iraq- The Big Lie: It's becoming more and more apparent that even if elected, Democrats won't bring the troops home from Iraq any faster than President Bush. In a sudden "awakening", the Editor of the New York Times shares an epiphany in a column titled: "Wrong Way Out of Iraq". I've included the column here and then some of my own comments after:
August 13, 2007
The New York Times
Editorial
Wrong Way Out of Iraq
As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise.
There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.
In Basra — after four years of British tutelage — police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.
And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.
But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.
Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
August 13, 2007
The New York Times
Editorial
Wrong Way Out of Iraq
As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise.
There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.
In Basra — after four years of British tutelage — police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.
And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.
But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.
Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
Alternate Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
Yes, call it "the big lie". This idea that we can walk off the battlefield while Jihadists still want engage and fight is ludicrous. The idea that we can "bring the war in Iraq to a close".
Americans and the North Koreans "brought the Korean War to a close" and both sides walked off the battlefield. 54 Years later we are still at a stand off with them, exchanging gunfire over the DMZ, reading occasional items in their press about the U.S.S Pueblo, and desperately searching for a way to stop their nuclear weapons program.
Americans "brought the war in Vietnam to a close" in 1975 and the North Vietnamese swept into Saigon, murdering the elected South Vietnamese leaders and imprisoning their military leaders. Oh, and don't forget that little Pol Pot thing where up to 2 million were slaughtered with no one there to prevent it.
The Soviets "brought their war in Afghanistan to a close" and walked off the battlefield and the Taliban was born. Millions were subjugated under a twisted, blasphemer's version of Sharia Law and al-Qaeda eventually found a home and 3,000 Americans eventually paid for this "closure" on 9/11.
Americans "brought the first Gulf War to a close" in 1991 when the U.S. stopped it's advance on Baghdad and walked off the battlefield. After that Saddam Hussein went on a murder spree, slaughtering Shia in Southeast Iraq and Kurds in nothern Iraq. Eventually he began defiantly shooting at U.S. fighters and spy planes patrolling over the No-Fly Zones- zones created by the U.N. to stop the murder of Shia and Kurds.
No, walking off the battlefield and "bringing a war to a close" only works for those who intend to keep fighting after the other side quits. It does not work for those who quit and walk away. When a nation opts to walk off the field in the middle of battle when the opponent intends to continue the fight, or jihad, or the subjugation, or whatever, there is always a bill to pay later..... a word to the wise!
Labels: Barak Obama, Bush, Bush Administration, Clinton, Dem-no-crats, Democrats, Edwards, Fred Thompson, Iraq, McCain, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Rice, Romney, Rudy, Rumsfeld, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Obama Announces Willingness to go to War- Against an Ally!: Barak Obama seems to have darted to the right in order to get the "let's go to war" vote with his announcement of his willingness to invade Pakistan- a U.S. ally. You read it right. Democrat Barak Obama announced that if President Musharraf of Pakistan didn't follow his (Obama's) orders, he (Obama) would be perfectly willing to invade the country to see his (Obama's) will done.
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
Labels: Barak, Barak Obama, bin Laden, Clinton, Democrat Party, Democrats, Musharraf, Obama, Pakistan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Monday, July 30, 2007
Notes for the Democrats- The War in Iraq: Dear Democrats, thought you might be interested in some information about Iraq that could come in handy while you deliberate on forcing the unconditional surrender of U.S. military forces in Iraq. I know you won't believe me, so luckily two liberal journalists from The New York Times just returned from the war zone and filed this report:
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas).
Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave.
In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
(Source Link: The War We Might Just Win)
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas).
Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave.
In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
(Source Link: The War We Might Just Win)
Labels: Baghdad, D-NV, Dem-no-crats, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Senate, Senator, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Webb, withdraw
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Democrat Party and Iraq: I'm just going to throw this out on the table. It's a simple question for all to ponder. I don't even really need to weigh in after I pose it. Here it is:
"If the Democrats and the Democrat Party really did want the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, and if they really did want the U.S. humiliated on the battlefield and forced into an unconditional surrender to jihadists, what would they be doing different to force that outcome than they are doing now?"
"If the Democrats and the Democrat Party really did want the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, and if they really did want the U.S. humiliated on the battlefield and forced into an unconditional surrender to jihadists, what would they be doing different to force that outcome than they are doing now?"
Labels: Bush, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, jihadists, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Sheehan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Democrat Anti-War Hoax: I suggest the entire "anti-war movement" is a hoax. There is NO national outcry to leave Iraq. The thinking reader will ask how I can come to this conclusion. It's easy.
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
Labels: Dem-no-crats, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Terrorism, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Al Gore on Terrorism- Obviously an Expert: I found an interesting video of Al Gore discussing Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Terrorism, and WMD way back in 1992. Here's a link to that video:
Al Gore Discussing Iraq and Terrorism in 1992
It's about a 9 minute video, but well worth the time spent viewing it!
Al Gore Discussing Iraq and Terrorism in 1992
It's about a 9 minute video, but well worth the time spent viewing it!
Labels: 1992, Al Gore, Bush, CSPAN, Hussein, Iraq, Terrorism, War in Iraq, War on Terror, WMD
Monday, May 21, 2007
American Legion Commander Speakes Out: The National Commander of the American Legion responds by letter to Sen. Edwards' cheap, theatric call to use Memorial Day as a day of protest. The letter, from the American Legion web site:
Message to America: Respect Memorial Day
By National Commander Paul A. Morin
Here is a surprise, I am not going to defend the Iraq war. I won’t even explain the importance of the war on terrorism. VA budget? Not today. That’s because this column is about Memorial Day, a hallowed day that should be about honoring the more than one million men and women who died in the service of this nation in wars and conflicts dating back to 1775. It should be above politics. Period. Yet one presidential candidate has blatantly violated the sanctity of this most special day.
I recently received an e-mail from a group called "Supportthetroopsendthewar.com." It included a video of former Sen. John Edwards. He calls on Americans to use Memorial Day weekend as a time to "bring an end to this war." Shockingly, the video is titled "A Memorial Day Message from John Edwards," with the smoking gun note, "Paid for by John Edwards for President." Moreover, the e-mail recommends that Americans bring signs with the message "Support the troops, End the War" to local Memorial Day parades. Revolting is a kind word for it. It’s as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone. Edwards is hardly the first politician from either political party to exploit this day, a holiday that was consecrated with the blood of American heroes.
But the e-mail makes me sick nonetheless. It needs to stop. This isn’t about Edwards, it’s about everybody. As national commander of The American Legion, I implore all candidates to refrain from politicking on Memorial Day. The families of those killed in war should not be led to believe that their loved ones died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because they took an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution. The sacrifice is the same whether it’s for a "popular war" or an unpopular one. Memorial Day should be an occasion to bring Americans together to honor these heroes. It brings to mind the words of Army Sergeant First Class Jack Robison, who recently wrote from Iraq, "Sometimes I think God must be creating an elite unit in heaven, because He only seems to select the very best soldiers to bring home early." If you want to honor these heroes, visit a veterans cemetery on Memorial Day.
Attend a parade without the divisive political signs. Make cards for the comrades of the fallen that are recuperating in military and VA hospitals. Lay a wreath at the stone of a departed hero. We Americans need to remember why Memorial Day is special. It’s not about picnics or trips to the beach. It’s not about making pro- or anti-war statements. It’s not about supporting political candidates. It’s about honor, duty and the ultimate sacrifice. It’s about people who have decided that the United States is worth dying for
Message to America: Respect Memorial Day
By National Commander Paul A. Morin
Here is a surprise, I am not going to defend the Iraq war. I won’t even explain the importance of the war on terrorism. VA budget? Not today. That’s because this column is about Memorial Day, a hallowed day that should be about honoring the more than one million men and women who died in the service of this nation in wars and conflicts dating back to 1775. It should be above politics. Period. Yet one presidential candidate has blatantly violated the sanctity of this most special day.
I recently received an e-mail from a group called "Supportthetroopsendthewar.com." It included a video of former Sen. John Edwards. He calls on Americans to use Memorial Day weekend as a time to "bring an end to this war." Shockingly, the video is titled "A Memorial Day Message from John Edwards," with the smoking gun note, "Paid for by John Edwards for President." Moreover, the e-mail recommends that Americans bring signs with the message "Support the troops, End the War" to local Memorial Day parades. Revolting is a kind word for it. It’s as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone. Edwards is hardly the first politician from either political party to exploit this day, a holiday that was consecrated with the blood of American heroes.
But the e-mail makes me sick nonetheless. It needs to stop. This isn’t about Edwards, it’s about everybody. As national commander of The American Legion, I implore all candidates to refrain from politicking on Memorial Day. The families of those killed in war should not be led to believe that their loved ones died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because they took an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution. The sacrifice is the same whether it’s for a "popular war" or an unpopular one. Memorial Day should be an occasion to bring Americans together to honor these heroes. It brings to mind the words of Army Sergeant First Class Jack Robison, who recently wrote from Iraq, "Sometimes I think God must be creating an elite unit in heaven, because He only seems to select the very best soldiers to bring home early." If you want to honor these heroes, visit a veterans cemetery on Memorial Day.
Attend a parade without the divisive political signs. Make cards for the comrades of the fallen that are recuperating in military and VA hospitals. Lay a wreath at the stone of a departed hero. We Americans need to remember why Memorial Day is special. It’s not about picnics or trips to the beach. It’s not about making pro- or anti-war statements. It’s not about supporting political candidates. It’s about honor, duty and the ultimate sacrifice. It’s about people who have decided that the United States is worth dying for
Labels: American Legion, Democrats, Edwards, Iraq, John Edwards, Memorial Day, Presidential Candidates, War in Iraq
