Saturday, March 31, 2007

The Sauds Read Ahmedinejad the Riot Act

The Arabs are getting a bit nervous and upset with their Persian brethren across the Gulf. Saudi Arabia has evidently read the riot act to Ahmedinejad in recent meetings:

On the 15 British hostages late of the HMS Cornwall:

The Saudi foreign minister . . . said it was "a catastrophe" for Iran to be holding 15 British sailors and marines it had captured on March 23. . . "This is just not the time for them to have a problem like that looming."
On the reality of the US threat to stop the Iranian nuclear program by force:
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah warned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he should not underestimate the US military threat on Iran.

Ahmadinejad met with King Abdullah on March 4 in Riyadh, and publicly the two leaders agreed to fight growing Sunni-Shiite strife in the region.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said that the king meanwhile warned Ahmadinejad to take seriously threats of US military strikes over Iran's refusal to halts its uranium enrichment program. "On the nuclear issue, we warned him: 'Don't play with fire. Don't think the threat [of an American attack on Iran] is a nonexistent threat; think that it's a real threat, maybe even a palpable threat,'" Faisal said in the interview posted on the Newsweek website Friday.
On Iran's meddling in internal affairs of other countries:
Faisal said, adding that his ruler bluntly told Ahmadinejad: "You're interfering in Arab affairs," a reference to Iran's alleged interference in other Middle East countries.

The Saudis also told the Iranians "that their interference in Arab affairs is creating a backlash in the Arab world and in the Muslim world. Other Muslim countries are complaining of [Iranian] interference in internal affairs," Faisal said.
Read the story here. It seems that acting thuggish can only go on for so long before everyone starts to get really annoyed. In this case, its taken 28 years, but still, it seems that the world's collective patience - other then the vile EU (see here) - is running out for Iran.

Read More...

Anti-Business Democrats

Business is the engine that drives the United States and the world. It goes beyond saying that the creation of wealth . . . (1) funds the tax base; (2) grows the economy; (3) creates jobs; (4) provides the US with the highest standard of living in the word; (5) allows for creation and deployment of a military in our self defese; (6) allows for the government to hand out the goodies . . . and on and on and on. And the opposite is equally true. One reduces the creation of wealth by (1) taxation; (2) regulations that require businesses to expend wealth, time and effort to comply; (3) limiting trade; . . . and on and on an on.

Thus I am always amazed when I see the left wingers of the United States decrying the inate evil of corporations, global trade and capitalism. It is insanity to a high degree and makes for incredibly cynical politic theatre. The compliment to that is protectionism and modifying trade laws to benefit special interests. It is not like it is still in question whether such actions are, as a rule, generally ill advised. Adam Smith penned his famous economic treatise, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776. His vision has proven incrdibly accurate, and indeed, those who have not heeded his words either have moribund economies or have seen their economic model fall by the wayside of history. I think we need to send a copy of this work to the Democrats in Congress if this WSJ article is correct:

. . . [T[his week House Democrats issued their new policy statement on trade that reads like a protectionist wish list. Among its lowlights: rewriting the Peru deal to require, among other things, that the Andean nation "adopt and enforce laws on logging Mahogany"; immediate action against "China and Japan currency manipulation"; adding global warming commitments to future trade agreements; and creating a new U.S. "Trade Enforcer" to file more trade cases in the World Trade Organization.

Democrats are even raising their demands for labor standards as part of trade deals. They used to insist that U.S. trading partners agree to adopt International Labor Organization (ILO) standards in principle. The U.S. had a "safe harbor" in the deals because American labor protections are both strict and well enforced. But now Democrats are saying they want any trade deal to require that the U.S. also meet specific ILO labor standards.

That's a backdoor way of rewriting U.S. labor law without having to assemble a majority in Congress. It's also a way of guaranteeing that trade deals won't pass in Congress, because few Republicans will go along with rules that make it easier for unions to organize and trump domestic sovereignty. Trade deals in recent years have required a House coalition of most Republicans and a smaller group of pro-business Democrats.

This all bears the fingerprints of Sander Levin, the Michigan Democrat who runs the trade subcommittee on Ways and Means and is well known as the Congressman from Big Labor. The AFL-CIO opposes any free-trade deals of the kind that Bill Clinton promoted, and this "new" Democratic policy has all the earmarks of a poison pill. Mr. Levin is thought to have the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and if that's true then Mr. Rangel may well be rolled in his own committee.

All of this reflects a surge left among Democrats on trade since the Clinton Presidency, and for reasons that have little to do with the economic evidence. U.S. job and wage growth has been healthy, even as more of the economy is trade dependent. A February study for the Business Roundtable found that one in five U.S. jobs now depends on exports or imports, compared with one in 10 in 1992. It also found that trade has a net positive impact on U.S. manufacturing jobs--far from the "giant sucking sound" of myth.

Read the artice here. I maintain that the '06 election was a vote against Republicans who had strayed from their small government roots, who failed to take decisive action in Iraq, and who completely lost the communications war. It was not a vote for Democrats, with their ridiculous arguments for leaving Iraq and their anti-business stance. Who could possibly vote for a party that would seek to hurt trade and enable failing labor unions to the detriment of the economy and simply to support special interests?

Read More...

The EU Disgraces Itself - There Must Be Consequences

Yesterday's acts by the EU will reverberate long into the future and with consequences that likely cannot be seen at this point. The UK asked for assistance from EU members in bringing pressure to bear on Iran to return the kidnapped 15 sailors and marines late of the HMS Cornwall. The EU placed their economic ties with Iran above the moral imperative of assisting Britain -- and even had the gall to lecture to the UK that this matter should not be taken to the point of confrontation -- no doubt because it would endanger their trade with Iran.

European foreign ministers failed last night to back Britain in a threat to freeze the €14 billion trade in exports to Iran, as the hostage crisis descended into a propaganda circus.

Tony Blair could only issue a new statement of disgust as Iran tormented him with another sailor’s video confession and a fresh letter from the young mother detainee.

A first written message from the Tehran Government offered some hope of a deal, but time is running out before the Iranian new year holiday ends and militant students and politicians return to business.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but ruled out any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers.

France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
Read the entire article here. One can make several observations from these acts. Indeed, one can even do so with relative calm and without the use of expletives -- but only after a long walk and a couple of glasses of 30 proof mead. The EU is beneath contempt.

1. The EU places their individual pecuniary interests above the interests of EU solidarity. There can be no future expectation of support by the EU for any particular member in any given scenario.

2. There is likely a huge element of anti-Americanism playing into the EU decision to rebuff the UK and it is motivated in part to punish the UK for allying with America. Anti-Americanism has been a hallmark of leftist politics throughout Old Europe, and the constant drumbeat of negativity has had its effect. For example, in Germany, more people consider the U.S. to be a greater threat to world peace then Iran and radical Islam.

3. The EU, which faces the same existential threat from Iran and radical Islam that the US and the UK face, is unwilling or unable to put its national security interests ahead of its short term pecuniary interests so long as the EU member nations feel safe under the umbrella of U.S. and U.K. protection.

4. The EU is willing to rely on the United States and the UK to provide and pay for their security while they feel free to reap economic benefit wherever possible, including trading with the the very nation that threatens their security.

5. The EU itself is wholly amoral with no sense of institutional loyalty. To motivate EU countries, one must offer them lucre or threaten their trade.

6. The EU member states cannot be counted upon as allies as a group.

7. In the wake of this rebuff, the UK will never go along with agreeing to an EU constitution. That is dead and buried.

8. In the wake of this rebuff, Angela Merkel's call for the melding of member state armies into a single EU military is beyond ridiculous.

9. It is unlikely that the UK will leave the EU over this incident - which is too bad really. However, there will be loud calls to consider it in the UK in the coming months and it will be an outside possibility.

10. The greed of the EU is blinding them to the ramifications of their refusal to support the UK. Their decision will embolden Iran and make the liklihood of this whole matter ending without the use of brute force far less likely. I seriously doubt that the UK will sit through a show trial of their troops without issuing an ultimatum on a date certain. George Bush is loyal. When Tony Blair asks, I have no doubt whatsoever that Bush will pull the trigger on the air craft carriers in the Gulf.

Having said all of that, the US can and should take actions to motivate Britain's fellow EU member states. A law on the books since the Clinton administration and recently revised under the rubric of The Iran Freedom Support Act allows for sanctions against companies, foreign and domestic, who trade in certain matters with Iran. No one has ever been sanctioned under it. Given the incredible greed and shortsightedness of the EU actions in rebuffing the UK, the U.S. should dust off this law immediately and announce its intentions to enforce the sanctions. It is likely the only coercive act the craven and despicalbe EU members could understand. There can be no more free rides when it comes to their own defense for the EU members.

Further, the U.S. should give serious consideration to whether it wishes to continue to be a member of NATO. We can certainly engage in treaties with those nations such as Britain and the members of new Europe who are willing to be loyal allies and pay for their share of their own defense. America's next military threat is coming from China, not Europe. Leaving NATO would allow us to free up significant military and command capability and refocus it to the true threats that we face in the future.

Hat Tip: Dinah Lord

Read More...

Islam, History, and Defunding the UN

The reason we face the problem of radical Islam today is that, in its entire history, Islam has seen no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Period of Enlightenment. These titanic events in Western history led to the development of secular values that came out of, but were separate from, the Judeo-Christian religion that birthed them. And they led to the critical development away from religion driving nation states and into religion being subsumed into the private lives of members of each nation state. Each of these events was founded upon critical thought - questioning and challenging religious ideals and dogma, seperating the wheat -- the belief in God and universal concepts of moral behavior -- from the chaff of religion – dogma that restricted development in all aspects of society – political, artistic, scientific, philosophical. Thus, today do our universities turn out the finest scientists, the finest writers, the finest mathematicians and astronomers, while the universities in Saudi Arabia primarily turn out Wahhabi clerics, the morals police in Saudi Arabia hunt down sorcerers, and the courts apply Wahhabi Sharia law to order the flogging of victims of gang rape.

Year 1 to Muslims begins with Hijra, Mohammed’s emigration to Medina in 622 A.D. When Mohammed died, Islam was still largely confined to Arabia. It is important to note that, before Mohammed died, he left his followers with a concept most clearly stated in a hadith - an authenticated saying of Mohammed. That hadith provides that the ummah – the community of Muslims – can “never agree on an error.” Complimenting this in the Koran, it says “People, you order what is right, forbid what is wrong, and you believe in God.” (3:110)

These concepts, taken together, allow for the evolution of Islam. And in another critical development following Mohammed’s death, as Islam progressed, there came the concept of ijtihad (see here and here). Ijtihad is the practice of reasoning from the texts, the hadiths, the sunna and the works of scholars to determine what Islam should mean, what it should approve and disapprove. If there will ever be a moderation of Islam, it will come from those concepts of the hadith and the Koran mentioned above, and from the practice of ijtihad.

But to continue with the chronological history - following Mohammed’s death, Islam spread at a pace never before or since duplicated. Its rapid expansion – by the sword – continued almost unchecked for the next several hundred years. Actually, in this regard, for any Muslim to criticize the West as imperialistic is irony of the highest order. The West are pikers compared to the Islamic caliphates. Within 130 years following the Hijra, Arabic Muslims had conquered the Middle East, Turkey, all of North Africa and the better part of Spain, and they were fighting battles inside France.

Through about 1100 A.D., Islamic society, led by the Arabs, far outshone the West in learning and technology. It was a far more enlightened society then what was to be found in Europe at the time. Indeed, at the turn of the first millenium, the premier city in the world was not London, Paris or Rome, but Baghdad. But, along with this vast expansion powered by the belief in Islamic destiny came the desire to control the precise nature of Islam by the Caliphs. At the end of the tenth century, the “gates of ijtihad” were ordered closed by the Caliphs and the Muslim philosophers cooperated. The concept of free reasoning fell from grace in Islam. This closing of the gates of ijtihad is credited by many scholars as the cause of the stagnation of Islam in succeeding centuries.

But there was much worse on the horizon. In the late 12th century came invasion by the Turks, followed closely by Ghengis Khan and the Mongol horde in the thirteenth century. For the Arabs, this was a catastrophe of titanic proportions. They were overrun, and it was the Turks, practitioners of Sufi Islam, not the Arabs, who emerged as the leadership of Islam. And into this time of turmoil was born Ibn Taymiya, the man whose philosophy and writings would be the foundation for Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi Islam.

Taymiya started from the proposition that Islam was from God, and it was God’s intent that Islam should spread to the four corners of the earth. In this light, Taymiya saw the success of the Turk and Mongol conquers as a punishment from God because Arab Muslims had allowed Islam to be corrupted. His answer was to return to what he believed animated Islam at the time of Mohammed. He was puritanical and a literalist. The Islam he envisioned was one of absolute tenets – dogmatic and beyond questioning.

Fast forward to eighteenth century Arabia, where Ibn Wahhab was born. Wahhab embraced the teachings of Taymiya and built upon them, arguing that any deviation therefrom was heretical and that the offender should be put to death. Wahhab promoted a triumphalist and imperialistic religion that saw anyone not in its membership as an enemy to be converted, conquered or killed. There has been little if any deviation from Wahhab's original dogma through to the modern day. Indeed, for example, one aspect of Wahhabi doctrine, taught in Saudi schools at least as recently as 2003, is that it is permissible to enslave “polytheists.” That comes from a Saudi textbook. If you are a Christian, by the way, you are a polytheist. Wahhabism is the soul of radical Islam. To go against any tenet of Wahhabi Islam is to conduct impermissible innovation and thus, to be labeled a heretic – and in this day and age, subject to losing your head.

To continue with the chronology, Wahhab found his way to Najd, a backwater of Arabia controlled by tribe of the Sauds. Wahhab partnered with the Sauds and what followed, over the next two centuries, was an incredibly savage conquest of the Arabian peninsula by the House of Saud. And in each place they conquered, they imposed Wahhabi Islam.

Fast forward now to the 20th century. Two events of note occur. Turkey, home of Sufi Islam and the caliphate presiding over the majority of the Islamic world, came into World War I on the side of Germany and was ultimately defeated. Its Middle Eastern empire was divided up among the European counties. Attaturk took power in Turkey and divested Islam from politics, secularizing the country. This was, in essence, the first step towards a revolution in the Islamic world – the divorcing of religion from the nation state and limiting it to the private lives of Turkish citizens. Unfortunately, as time has gone on, Wahhabism has infected Turkey, and today we see the creep of Islamism into the state apparatus. Turkey has withdrawn from the precipice of a revolution to moderate and modernize Islam that its combination of secular government and classical Sufi Islam may have led.

The second event of note was the triumph of Wahhabi Islam with the conquest of Arabia by the House of Saud. Indeed, even before the final conquest, Wahhabi Islam had already influenced – or infected, if you like – many of the other schools of Islam. Two prime examples are the Pakistani Deobandi school that today is the basis for the Taliban, as well Islam in Egypt, from whence arose the first truly modern radical Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood.

But Wahhabi Islam only truly became an engine of conquest with the growth of the oil industry and the influx of billions of petrodollars into Saudi Arabia. Today, Saudi Arabia is spending these billions to spread its brand of Islam to the four corners of the world and to supplant the other schools of Islam. Other then oil, Saudi Arabia’s main exports are Wahhabi clerics, Wahhabi mosques, and Wahhabi schools in every corner of the world. Further, the petrodollars are used to fund the Middle East studies program at most major colleges in the Western World – whose teaching invariably cover, cover for, and cover up Wahhabi Islam – and to fund Wahhabi organizations such as CAIR that perform much the same function in Western society at large.

I do not know that Wahhabi Islam also influenced and radicalized Ayatollah Khoemeni. But, given that he took Iranian Shia Islam out of its historically nonpolitical role in Iran and thrust Shiaism, for the first time in history, into the political realm with the creation of Iran’s theocracy, I would suspect that it did. I would be absolutely amazed if some scholar did not eventually catalogue such an influence.

To sum up, the whole of the Islamic world is endangered by the growth of Wahhabi Islam. And Wahhabi Islam holds it dogma to be beyond question – upon pain of censure and, often, death. If there is to be a moderation and modernization of Islam – a Reformation and Period of Enlightenment if you will – it will not will arise out of Wahhabi Islam without tremendous bloodshed.

Ultimately, in the world of ideas, it is only through questioning and critical reasoning that advancements occur. To put an Islamic face on that, it is only through the embrace of ijtihad and the concepts of Islam discussed earlier that there is any chance that Islam will finally see a great historical change to moderate and modernize from Wahhab’s vision of 7th century Islam into a form of Islam that can coexist with the rest of the world in the 21st century. And Western society has an obligation not to be coerced into silence, but to openly criticize what we find dangerous and wrong in Islam. If our voice is cowed, how can we expect the voice of would be moderates in the world of Islam to stand up - and withstand the inevitable Wahhabi onslaught to their existence. The cost to humanity and the world if Islam does not have its Reformation and Enlightenment will almost assuredly be apocalyptic.

Which brings us to today, and the United Nations Human Rights Organization. I have already posted that I believe the UN exists in an alternate Islamic universe. It finds fault with illegal acts or human rights violations only in Israel. See here and here. But we have now reached the final Islamic straw.

Friday, March 30, 2007, Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council demanding a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion. Lest there be any doubt about which religion they are concerned with, the only religion mentioned in the resolution is Islam. As stated in the minutes from the UN Human Rights Council meeting:

The Council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; . . .

The UN is only doing the work of radical Wahhabi Islamists at this point. If there is ever to be a peaceful coexistence with Muslims, it is not the West that needs to bend to Wahhabi Islam – as CAIR and the Islamists at UN would have us do. We can coexist with Muslims as long as they are not trying to kill us and impose their religion by coercion or by working fundamental changes to our Western secular values by crying Islamaphobia and changing our laws. Unfortunately, many adherents to Wahhabi Islam cannot exist without trying to kill us and impose their religion by coercion as they see that as part of their religious duty. Thus, it is their religion that needs to change. It needs to go through its Reformation, and there needs to be a period of Enlightenment. The clearest way to stop this transformation from ever occurring is to outlaw criticism of Islam. This would be putting a nail into the coffin of Western civilization, in addition to insuring the ultimate domination of the Wahhabi philosophy in Islam.

If this is what we can expect from UN as reformed, it needs to be defunded by the U.S. In the Senate hearings for his confirmation as the new U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad has argued against defunding the UN but has also stated that the UN faces a “mortal threat" if it fails to reform.

I agree on the issue of reforms, but disagree as to the funding issue. The UN must be defunded until the Human Rights Commission and other ancillary organizations are taken from the hands of Islamic nations and their functions made to comport with reality. I would further not give a cent to the UN until there is formed a UN Commission on Islam that has its mission suggesting revisions to current Islamic tenets that do not comport with modernity or basic human rights upon principles that can be reasoned from the Koran, etc. – to be in essence a central engine for ijtihad. I have no doubt that ijtihad and the concept of the supremacy of the ulma, rather then the supremacy of the radical Wahhabi clerics, can accomplish this. Until that day, I would leave the UN to subsist on Rials.
Update: This post cross linked at the American Thinker Blog

Read More...

Friday, March 30, 2007

Someone Tell Nancy Pelosi, The British Hostage Crisis Is OUR Crisis

Do You Really Want Nancy Pelosi Leading The US?

The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the Mad Mullah's kidnapping of 15 British sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for the sailors "immediate, safe and unconditional release." That was an appropriate response.

But what of Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives? A measure was indeed offered, but Pelosi refused to allow it to come to the floor for a vote despite personal appeals from Republican House members (see here). This decision by Pelosi and company was explained today:

Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.

"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Daly said.

More harm then good? You have got to be kidding. Is standing up to Iranian provocation by simply speaking out against it going to do harm? No, there is more going on here. While a Resolution condemning Iranian actions is symbolic and of no practical effect, Pelosi’s refusing to allow such a resolution to be heard on the floor of the House has significant practical effect. The message is clear. The Democrats in control of the House will not support our allies, nor will they support anything that might lead to retaliation against the Iranians, regardless of the provocation. She just handed the Iranians a free pass - for this act of provocation as well as for their continued meddling in Iraq. I am sure that message is being heard loud and clear in Terhan.

Let there be no doubt. Pelosi is keeping her eye on the prize – Democratic political gains in Congress and the Presidency - and all else is meaningless to her. She will fight tooth and nail to prevent the use of force against Iran for any reason, just as she is fighting to see us out of Iraq while the going is still tough, before Petraeus’ surge has any chance of succeeding. She is banking on the anti-war left in America carrying the day and insuring long term partisan political gain. This refusal to even condemn the Iranian actions is simply one more manifestation of that strategy.

Pelosi’s spokesman's assertion that this is “AN’ international crisis is both craven and false. This is “OUR” crisis – not just the Brits. There is no doubt that this act of Iranian aggression is aimed at the US and the UK, even though it was only the UK that was targeted. See here and here.

Pelosi’s refusal to acknowledge that this is a crisis shared by the US is simply more of the same type of dissembling she regularly engages in for partisan political purposes. On the day that the House passed HR 1591, legislating retreat from Iraq on a date certain, Pelosi claimed in a speech before the House that the war in Iraq was “not related to the war on terror.”

This is sheer lying to the American public. It is not spin. It is not opinion. It is a lie. It contradicts every pronouncement from bin Laden and Zarqawi since 2002 that Iraq is the central battle for al Qaeda. It ignores the reality that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. It shuts off any assessment of the likely ramifications that will arise from leaving Iraq without a functioning democracy.

I have posted on this insanity before, see here, and Charles Krauthammer has weighed in on the subject today. See here.

This is all just par for the course for Nancy Pelosi and company. Pelosi’s refusal to allow the resolution condemning the Iranian kidnapping of 15 of Her Majesty’s sailors and marines is a scandal. It needs to be portrayed as such by all people more concerned about our national security then they are about partisan political gain.

Read More...

In Addressing the Hostage Crisis, One of the First Steps Must be Publicly Addressing ROE and Force Protection

EU Referendum is reporting:

. . . As more details emerge of the snatch, it has emerged that only two boats were initially used by the Iranians. Video footage has been released by Iranian television showing close-ups of one of the vessels, a small speedboat with a crew of three, armed with what appears to be a single 12.7mm machine gun.

This was hardly a formidable force and one which, with the right assets in place and an alert overwatch, could easily have been seen off. Given the enormous repercussions of the kidnapping – to say nothing of the national humiliation – questions as to how the British service personnel were so easily ambushed now become increasingly urgent.

I had previously posted (see here) that Tony Blair needs to be called to the carpet for this, and the British ROE that allowed this to happen. Tony Blair's bald assertion before Parliment the other day that the ROE would have allowed for Her Majesty's sailors and marines to defend themselves and saying that they made the right decision (see here) is wholly insufficient. The fact is they did not defend themselves. The problem lies in that they saw surrendering without defending themselves as either the appropriate course of action or the only possible course of action.

I do not doubt the bravery of the 15 captured. So the reason for their allowing themselves to be captured must be a systemic one - and that inquiry has to start with the Tony Blair and the ROE. The former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West,has stated,
British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

It may be that that the British ROE is not as stated above, but rather would have been sufficient in this case, but that an altered ROE was communicated to the sailors and marines. This happened with the U.S. military, with the soldiers at ground level being given more restrictive ROE's by their immediate commanders because the commanders wanted to protect themselves from criticism. General Petraeus handled that by drafting new ROE and that included an order that his ROE could not be altered in any way. See here. In either event, whether the problem is as the Sea Lord has posited, or whether it is in translating the ROE to the troop level, there is a systemic problem that Blair needs to publicly admit and fix - not gloss over with praise for the decision forced upon the 15 sailors and marines.

And two, the commander of the HMS Cornwall needs to disciplined for dereliction of duty. Regardless of the ROE - these were his soldiers and marines and he is responsible for their safety and security. It is bad enough to have to lead troops into combat knowing that, despite your best efforts, some will become casualities. But to not reasonably protect them at all times during their deployment is unforgivable. That this kidnapping came on top of a previous kidnapping in the same place, and following recent warnings that Iran was likely to try and retaliate for the people they have lost in Iraq (see here), only adds more fuel to the fire.

There are several reasons these things need to be done. One, it is a necessary component of the myriad of things that need to be publicized to the mad mullahs that Britain will not tolerate provocative acts like this. Clearly establishing that Britain will fight back at the point of open provocation does not mean open warfare - it means self defense. The policy of de-escalation, if that in fact is the British navy's policy, is counter productive - it is what has allowed this kidnapping travesty. There is no need to provoke the Iranians, but there has to be an absolute line in the sand that the Iranians cannot pass without bloodshed. That line must clearly be drawn at the point of protecting from death or capture those who have volunteered to serve their country. Do you think for a moment that the Iranians would have tried this if they thought the British would fight back? We are much closer now to open warfare with Iran then we would have been had we engaged the Iranians and not let them take hostages.

Two, the troops who volunteer for Her Majesty's military need to understand that they will be supported and protected in the future. That means providing them with ROE that allow them to defend themselves and deploying them so that they can be reinforced or supported by fire in an event such as this kidnapping attempt. This whole situation has got to be horribly damaging to the morale of the British forces. Military leadership demands caring for and protecting one's troops. In the rush to get the hostages back - addressing why this happened and publicly correcting it must be among the top priorities.

Read More...

Krauthammer on Why We Should Remain in Iraq

Charles Krauthammer examines the Democratic legislation to force our military out of Iraq and reinforce Afghanistan and asks, are they nuts?

Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

Al-Qaeda has provided the answer many times. Osama bin Laden, the one whose presence in Afghanistan presumably makes it the central front in the war on terror, has been explicit that ``the most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq." Al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has declared that Iraq ``is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.''

And it's not just what al-Qaeda says, it's what al-Qaeda does. Where are they funneling the worldwide recruits for jihad? Where do all the deranged suicidists who want to die for Allah gravitate? It's no longer Afghanistan, but Iraq. That's because they recognize the greater prize.

The Democratic insistence on the primacy of Afghanistan makes no strategic sense. Instead, it reflects a sensibility. . .

What is sad is that Mr. Krauthammer felt it necessary to compose on this topic that should be self evident - and indeed, seems to be but to partisan Democrats. Read the full post here.

Read More...

Good News Bad News & More News

Jules Crittenden makes a narrative of all the interesting news of the week relating to Iraq, Iran, and everything connected thereto.

Read More...

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Weekly News from the Religion of Peace

In northern Nigeria, Muslims find that burning churches can be an enjoyable pastime. Indeed, it can be almost as satisfying as murdering Christians.

In Sri Lanka, making the historically accurate statement that Buddhism in Central Asia fell to the sword of imperialistic Islam earns one the "wrath of the Islamic World" for such sacrilegious tripe. Lies, I say, all lies already "completely shattered by great Imams and Islamic Scholars throughout the ages."

How to handle those troublesome Christian evangelists if you are a Wahhabi Islamist in Ethiopia? Not a problem, just drag one into a mosque and beat him to death. Clean, neat, and besides, those silly Christians always just turn the other cheek anyway.

How does one get an A in 12th grade classes in Palestine? According to their school text books – just remember to answer that Israel has no right to exist and fighting Jews is a good Muslims religious duty. Allah Akbar.

What’s more fun then killing a Christian accused of desecrating a Quran? If you live in Punjab Province in Pakistan, it’s to listen to the Christian scream for a few hours while you torture him – oh, and to steal all the money in his house that was saved up for the daughter’s wedding. Hey, now before you criticize the religion of peace, don’t kid yourself - torturing Christians is thirsty business, especially when it goes on for a few hours. The mob no doubt needed libations to cool their parched throats, and since the Christian caused all of their angst in the first place . . .

How do you respond in the UK to an MP’s suggestion that you fly the UK flag over the mosque to show that you really want to integrate into British society? You respond with a collective middle finger and a disbelieving "Inter-what?"

If you are a young Muslim girl in Malaysia that no longer wants to play along with the Muslim misogynistic game plan but . . . still want to keep your head attached to your shoulders, what do you do? Why you ask the country’s Sharia court for permission to denounce Islam, pointing, among other things, to the Koran’s promise that there is to be no compulsion in religion, and also noting your fear of denouncing Islam without a seal of approval to guard your throat. Sound reasonable? Not to a Sharia court whose reasoning seems more then a little circular:

"The reasons given by the applicant are based on fear of punishment which is against the teachings of Islam. Is fear a good enough reason?

"The court finds the reasons given are weak and not one that can be used as permissible to [leave Islam]."

And lastly, lets not forget the Fatwah on Your Hymen. And that is but some of the news coming out of the religion of peace this week.

Oh, and if you happened to miss it, do please see the Lighter Side of Wahhabi Islam.

Read More...

Georgius Rex

For those of you with an appreciation of history and a taste for high quality satire, Dannielle Crittenden has a hilarious piece on Huffington Post overlaying the HBO series Rome onto the Bush administration. Do please read and enjoy it.


Read More...

How to Win In Iraq - Counterinsurgency Ops Explained

From today's Wall Street Journal:

As recently as two years ago, Galula's book was virtually unknown in Pentagon circles. Today it has become the bible of American counterinsurgency thinkers like Gen. Petraeus, whose field manual (known as FM 3-24) it largely informs. Its masterful approach to breaking, isolating and then uprooting a terrorist insurgency is the core of our revised near-term strategy for Iraq, a strategy based, in Gen. Petraeus's words, on the principle that "you're not going to kill your way out of an insurgency."

The current surge of 21,500 troops in Baghdad is a textbook example of Galula's lessons in action. First, as in the northern city of Mosul in 2003-04, where he used a similar grid system, Gen. Petraeus aims to turn things around in the single most vital "pink" zone--namely, Baghdad and its environs, within whose 50-mile radius 80% of the violence in Iraq takes place. Critics have already charged that our recent successes in suppressing the militias in this area signify only a temporary respite. But Gen. Petraeus, like his predecessor Galula, understands that in counterinsurgency warfare, temporary respites are all there is. The goal is to make those respites last longer and longer, until eventually they become permanent. As he has said, "The idea is to end each day with fewer enemies than when it started." Anything more ambitious leads to overreaching, disenchantment, and ultimately failure.

That from WSJ column authored by the scholar Arthur Hermann disecting the tenents of counterinsurgency operations as applicable to Iraq. It is an exceptionally well written and informative piece. See here.

Read More...

The UN-Human Rights Council Operating in an Alternate Islamic Universe

Atefeh Sahaaleh was a 16-year-old Iranian girl who was executed in Iran after being sentenced to death by an Iranian judge, Haji Rezai, for allegedly having committed "acts incompatible with chastity" The proof of her crime was that she claimed that she had been repeatedly raped by a 51-year-old man. Because Iranian law requires the testimony of four men to prove rape, the judge determined that the party at fault was Sahaaleh, and she was executed by hanging - with the judge even affixing the noose at her execution. Does this whole travesty sound like a human rights violation of the type the UN Human Rights Council should be investigating? Think again. Today's reformed Human Rights Council does not do Muslim - nor anything other then Israel, actually.

This today on the UN Human Rights Council from Publius Pundit:

Foreign Policy's Passport blog has a post up about how the UN Human Rights Council has become a complete joke, a shadow of its supposed ideals. It writes about latest developments this week in Geneva:
In Geneva this week, any pretense of utility or fairness that clung to the United Nations Human Rights Council finally evaporated. By a decisive margin, the Council voted to end its examination of Iran and Uzbekistan despite worsening human rights records in both countries. Japan, South Korea, and Brazil were surprising votes in favor of the free passes; they had been supported more predictably by Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and Azerbaijan.


Ironic given that Iran and Uzbekistan are perhaps some of the worst human rights violators in the world. Could Amnesty International possibly have been wrong when it declared "a new beginning for human rights" back in May 2006? No, it's a new beginning alright. It's an era of greater protection for human rights violators and back-patting for the insane leftists who supported its creation! Everyone wins! (Except the victims, but who are they, really?)

In nearly a year, here is a brief list of some of the Human Rights Council's greatest accomplishemnts:
Successfully condemned one country only, Israel.

[Successfully condemned Israel eight] times.

Voted on June 30, 2006, to review Israeli human rights abuses at every council session.

While investigating the Israeli-Hezbollah war, it announced that, "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel." No bias here.

Cuba is mounting a campaign to eliminate the council's ability to even investigate human rights
.
And that's just some of them, but you can see the single-mindedness and uselessness of it all. Even the Human Rights Watch people are having to admit that their early optimism was clearly misplaced as best. Human rights isn't an issue that can be politicized and decided upon in the context of regional and despotic politics. But even when the council's democratic members don't stand up for them, all hope is lost.

I had posted earlier that the UN seems to operate in alternate Islamic universe. See here. The above would seem to underline and add exclamation marks to that premise. Read Publius' whole post here.

Read More...

Who are the Rioters?

I have been following the latest unrest in France with interest, but as of yet, the press at all levels has failed to characterize the youths involved. There are hints . . . "illegal alien," . . . youths from a "ethnic minority community." Is this yet another case of the French ignoring their Muslim problem even as it's kicking them in le derriere?

French police are bracing themselves for fresh outbreaks of violence after hundreds of youths rioted over the arrest of an illegal immigrant at a main railway station in Paris.

The rioters fought running battles with police in and around Gare Du Nord for five hours, set light to rubbish bins and smashed nearby shop windows. . . .

The violence was reminiscent of the riots that flared in Paris’s poor suburbs in 2005 when Nicholas Sarkozy, now a presidential candidate, was Interior Minister. François Baroin, who succeeded Mr Sarkozy this week, said that the rioters used “urban guerrilla” tactics. A total of 13 people were arrested.

The violence erupted on Tuesday, during the evening rush hour, after ticket inspectors stopped a 33-year-old man for jumping over a barrier at Gare du Nord Métro station. The man — described by Mr Baroin as an illegal immigrant with 22 convictions — allegedly headbutted one of the inspectors.

Police said that they were surrounded by youths as they went to arrest the man. Nine officers and inspectors were hurt in the fighting, which lasted until about 1am.

. . . Amateur videos showed between 200 and 300 youths shouting insults aimed at Mr Sarkozy as they faced a line of riot police standing behind their shields. Witnesses said that police charged several times and used tear gas.

“There was a smell of smoke and tear gas,” said a witness who was returning home after a concert. “I was struck by the sight of a group of tourists, certainly foreigners, cowering and hiding at the end of a platform, completely panicked.”

Mr Sarkozy’s opponents said that his hardline law and order policies were partly to blame as they had exacerbated tensions in ethnic minority communities. Mr Sarkozy said: “We are the only country in the world where people think it’s not right to arrest someone who has not paid for his ticket. If the police is not there to ensure a minimum of order, what exactly is its role?”
Police unions said that the violence highlighted the gulf separating French authorities and suburban youths, groups of whom regularly use Gare du Nord as a meeting point.

2005 clashes

20: nights of rioting

19: provinces affected

8,973: vehicles torched

2,888: people arrested

1: person died

€200m: amount of damage caused

The entire article can be found here.

Read More...

Dog Performs Heim-lick

From the "Man (and Woman's) Best Friend department:

Debbie Parkhurst, 45, of Calvert told the Cecil Whig she was eating an apple at her home Friday when a piece lodged in her throat. She attempted to perform the Heimlich maneuver on herself but it didn't work. After she began beating on her chest, she said Toby noticed and got involved.

"The next thing I know, Toby's up on his hind feet and he's got his front paws on my shoulders," she recalled. "He pushed me to the ground, and once I was on my back, he began jumping up and down on my chest."That's when the apple dislodged and Toby started licking her face to keep her from passing out, she said."

I literally have pawprint-shaped bruises on my chest. I'm still a little hoarse, but otherwise, I'm OK," Parkhurst said.

"The doctor said I probably wouldn't be here without Toby," said Parkhurst, a jewelry artist. "I keep looking at him and saying 'You're amazing.'"
Read the story here. Dogs . . . you gotta' love 'em. It's things like this that makes one completely overlook their other less desirable acts, such as their taste for good books and socks. In my house, any book forgetfully left below a height of five feet is toast, and my budget for socks is breaking me.

Read More...

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

An Important Sitrep on Iraq

Retired General Barry McAffery has authored a must read report based on a recent tour of Iraq and meetings with all of the top level of leadership throughout the area. To call it the good, the bad and the ugly would be an understatement. He pulls no punches at all –starting out his report with the statements:

Iraq is ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels with as many as 3000 citizens murdered per month. The population is in despair.

. . . Three million Iraqis are internally displaced or have fled the country to Syria and Jordan. The technical and educated elites are going into self-imposed exile---a huge brain drain that imperils the ability to govern. The Maliki government has little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged. It is despised by the Sunni as a Persian surrogate. It is believed untrustworthy and incompetent by the Kurds.

There is no function of government that operates effectively across the nation. . . .

. . . Since the arrival of General David Petraeus in command of Multi-National Force Iraq--- the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved.
The report is a real gut-check that spells out the challenges we face. But McCaffrey is not waiving the French national flag, nor is he shilling for the Democrats. His ultimate conclusions are:

We have brilliant military and civilian leadership on the ground in Iraq. . . Our cause is just. The consequence of failure will be severe.

The American people hold that the US Armed Forces are the most trusted institution in our society. The polls also show that domestic opinion is not calling for precipitous withdrawal. However, this whole Iraq operation is on the edge of unraveling as the poor Iraqis batter each other to death with our forces caught in the middle.

We now need a last powerful effort to provide to US leaders on the ground ---the political support, economic reconstruction resources, and military strength it requires to succeed.
McCaffrey goes onto to foretell that, in the current political climate, we have approximately 36 months before the plug will be pulled on operations in Iraq. I think that he is being optimistic myself. Regardless, some of his most interesting observatons:

The US Tier One special operations capability is simply magic. They are deadly in getting their target—with normally zero collateral damage—and with minimal friendly losses or injuries. Some of these assault elements have done 200-300 takedown operations at platoon level. The comprehensive intelligence system is phenomenal. We need to re-think how we view these forces. They are a national strategic system akin to a B1 bomber. We need to understand that the required investment level in the creation of these forces demands substantial dedicated UAV systems, intelligence, and communications resources. These special operations formations cannot by themselves win the nation’s wars. However, with them we have a tool of enormous and decisive strategic significance which has crucial importance in the global war on terrorists.

. . . The wariness, adherence to ROE, and discipline of the involved air and ground forces are awe-inspiring. I watched with fascination the attack video of an Apache whose pilots held fire at absolutely the last second ---when what they suspected (correctly) was an innocent farmer appeared in the foreground of a pending Hellfire launch against 5-6 armed insurgents. The pilot painstakingly changed his attack angle--- and sailed the Hellfire over the farmer’s head and successfully nailed the insurgents.

. . . There is a real and growing ground swell of Sunni tribal opposition to the Al Qaeda-in-Iraq terror formations. (90% Iraqi.) This counter-Al Qaeda movement in Anbar Province was fostered by brilliant US Marine leadership. There is now unmistakable evidence that the western Sunni tribes are increasingly convinced that they blundered badly by sitting out the political process. They are also keenly aware of the fragility of the continued US military presence that stands between them and a vengeful and overwhelming Shia-Kurdish majority class--- which was brutally treated by Saddam and his cruel regime. There is now active combat between Sunni tribal leadership and AQI terrorists. Of even greater importance, the Sunni tribes are now supplying their young men as drafts for the Iraqi Police. (IP). AQI is responding with customary and sickening violence. Police are beheaded in groups; families of IP officers are murdered (or in one case a 12 year old boy was run over multiple times by a truck in front of his family)—all designed to intimidate the tribes. It is not working. The Takfiri AQI extremism of: no music, no photos, no videos, no cutting of beards, etc does not sit well with the moderate form of Islam practiced among the western tribes. This is a crucial struggle and it is going our way—for now.
Read the whole report here. McCaffrey provides dire warnings about our undersized military - I did not realize we had cut back to the point of it being the smallest since World War II - force readiness, reserves, national guard, and a host of other issues. But he also retains optimism that each of the challenges can be met.

I would also strongly urge you to read this article that strongly compliments McCaffrey's report by its detailed explanation of counterinsurgency opertations in Iraq.

Read More...

A Slaughter at Tal Afar and the Challenge to the Maliki Government

Tuesday, March 27, 2007, Sunni insurgents detonated two truck bombs in Tal Afar, slaughtering and injuring hundreds of innocent Shia civilians. Shias responded with a slaughter of their own. And as we watch how this incident is handled by the Maliki Government, it will tell us much about the government's ability to forge a government of law and justice – one that exists for the benefit of all of its citizens, not merely Shias. Maliki has made recent overtures to the Sunnis to bring them into the fold and to convince them to stop supporting the insurgency. See here. How Maliki handles the challenge posed by the recent incidents in Tal Afar will will directly affect how the Sunnis respond to his overtures.

Tal Afar was a Sunni insurgent stronghold until an offensive by U.S. and Iraqi troops in September 2005, when militants fled into the countryside without a fight. The real problems in Tal Afar began yesterday with two truck bombings, presumably by al Qaeda affiliated terrorists:

[The two truck bombs in] Tal Afar on Tuesday that killed 80 people and wounded 185. Al-Douski said one of the trucks exploded after the driver lured people in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood to the site by telling them he was distributing free flour from a humanitarian organization. The bombing caused surrounding buildings to collapse, leaving huge piles of concrete and bricks dusted with white flour.

Videotaped footage from the scene was broadcast Wednesday night showing a man dead in the front seat of his car. Men and women carried the limp bodies of children powdered with flour. Others dug through the rubble with their bare hands in a search for survivors.

In the wake of this craven attack on innocent civilians, some Shias reacted by slaughtering innocent Sunnis.
Shiite militants and police enraged by deadly truck bombings went on a shooting rampage against Sunnis in a northwestern Iraqi city Wednesday, killing as many as 70 men execution-style and prompting fears that sectarian violence was spreading outside the capital.

The killings occurred in the mixed Shiite-Sunni city Tal Afar, which had been an insurgent stronghold until an offensive by U.S. and Iraqi troops in September 2005, when militants fled into the countryside without a fight. Last March, President Bush cited the operation as an example that gave him "confidence in our strategy."

The gunmen roamed Sunni neighborhoods in Tal Afar through the night, shooting at residents and homes, according to police and a local Sunni politician. Witnesses said relatives of the Shiite victims in the truck bombings broke into Sunni homes and killed the men inside or dragged them out and shot them in the streets.

Gen. Khourshid al-Douski, the Iraqi army commander in charge of the area, said 70 were shot in the back of the head and 40 people were kidnapped. A senior hospital official in Tal Afar, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of security concerns, said 45 men were killed.
The reaction of the Maliki government so far is appropriate.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office ordered an investigation and the U.S. command offered to provide assistance.

Ali al-Talafari, a Sunni member of the local Turkomen Front Party, said the Iraqi army had arrested 18 policemen accused in the shooting rampage after they were identified by Sunni families. Shiite militiamen also took part, he said.
Read the story here. This is one to monitor closely. How this plays out will tell us much about the viability of Maliki government. Maliki would be well served by inviting neutral Sunnis to observe the investigation. If the Sunnis perceive that there is a real and thorough investigation of the Shias who took part in this incident, and if the Sunni's perceive that justice is being served by those who took part in this slaughter being held accountable, then mark it in the books that the Maliki government may yet provide for a stable Iraq.

Update: Recent reports from the NYT are not promising:
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki immediately ordered an investigation into the killings. Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani told the government-run television channel Iraqiya on Wednesday that the government would “take legal action” against the 18 police officers who had been arrested and accused of involvement in the massacre, in which at least 70 people were killed.

But on Thursday, officials in Nineveh Province, where the attacks occurred, said the police officers had been held only briefly by the Iraqi Army and released.

Nineveh’s governor, Durad Kashmul, said at a news conference that the the army had freed the policemen “to deter strife” after a street demonstration demanding their release, Reuters reported.

Husham al-Hamdani, the head of the provincial security committee, confirmed to The Associated Press that the officers had been freed but gave no reason. Repeated calls to the spokesmen for the Iraqi military command went unanswered, and an envoy from Prime Minister Maliki who visited Tal Afar said he could not confirm or deny the report that the policemen had been released.
Update: Fox News is reporting that the Iraqi policeman suspected of involvment in the reprisal attack have been rearrested by the Iraqi Army. It was on cable and I have no site.

Update: This report is from Bill Rogio at Fourth Rail
The toll from Tuesday's suicide attack in the northern city of Tal Afar has risen to 152 killed and 347 wounded. This is the single most deadly suicide attack in Iraq since al Qaeda started its suicide campaign inside Iraq in the summer of 2003. Over 100 homes were destroyed in the Tal Afar attack. Fourth-seven were were killed in the reprisal killings by militia and off duty policemen, not the 70 initially reported. The Niwena provincial government has re-arrested the policemen involved in the attacks. A representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani warned the Tal Afar bombings could lead to a civil war, and condemned the attacks on civilians nationwide.

Update: Also from Bill Rogio at Fourth Rail:

The Iraqi Army moved in to restore security, and the policemen were arrested. Al Qaeda was able to succeed in provoking the reprisal in Tal Afar, but the silver lining is the response from the Iraqi Army and the government, which reacted quickly and independently to restore order.

Read More...

The Navigationally Challenged Mullahs

The UK Times is reporting that, over the weekend, Iran, provided "proof" to the British governement that the abduction of 15 of the U.K.'s sailors and marines occurred in Iranian waters by providing GPS data. The only problem - the coordinates placed the sailors and marines squarely in Iraqi waters. When the Brits pointed out this error and demanded the return of their sailors and marines, what they received intstead was a different set of GPS coordinates from the mad mullahs.

In response, the UK has released GPS data that shows the boarding party of 15 sailors and marines were 1.7 miles inside of Iraqi waters when they were abducted by the Iranians. See here. Their location was verified by the captain of the vessel the Brits were inspecting at the time of the abduction.

This will add clarity to the Britain's call for the return of their soldiers, though, in reality, the location of the abduction, either in or out of Iraqi waters, is really a red herring. See here. There is no legal justification for the Iranian action - it is Iran's rouge theocracy acting as it always has.

In addition to the GPS data, Britain outlined its course of action in dealing with the Iranians, and Tony Blair answered questions about the Rules of Engagement (ROE).


[T]he Prime Minister and . . . Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, . . . told MPs that Britain was immediately freezing all bilateral ties with Iran - except for contacts directly concerning the seized personnel.

"They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," Mrs Beckett said.

. . . Minutes after the MoD press conference, the Prime Minister told the Commons that Britain was mobilising international support to show Iran how isolated it was. Mr Blair described the seizure as “completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal”.

Responding to a question from David Cameron, the Conservative leader, about the rules of engagement the patrols were operating under, Mr Blair said that the sailors and Marines could have used force in self defence. But he was was quite satisfied that they had taken the right decision in not drawing their arms after being surrounded by six heavily armed Iranian Republic Guard vessels.

"If they had engaged in military combat at the stage, there would undoubtedly have been severe loss of life," he said.

Mr Blair added by the time the crew of HMS Cornwall realised that the 15 had been detained and a Lynx helicopter dispatched to find them, they were already in Iranian waters - making intervention that much more dangerous.

As much as I like Tony Blair, I think this blithely passing over the ROE and acts of the Commander of the HMS Cornwall are very much in the wrong. See here.

This Iranian provocation is an act of war. For one, Tony Blair should clearly announce what steps he will take for force protection in the future -- i.e., that all boarding parties will operate within the support range of the fleet, and that future provocations will be met by overwhelming force. And two, while Tony Blair is taking the proper diplomatic steps, he should get the UN involved immediately, as this was a UN mandated mission the sailors and marines were undertaking. And last, diplomacy may not win out - and If this travesty is allowed to play out long, it will only further embolden the mad mullahs who already believe that, with the West, they are fighting a eunuch unable to defend itself. At some point, an ultimatum needs to be issued, backed up with all of the firepower that the UK and its ally, the US can provide in the Gulf. See here.

Update: The NYT is reporting (see here) that the Iranians have posted videos of the captured sailors and marines, including a video of the female sailor captured, now with her hair covered in Iranian style, praising her Iranian captors for their treatment and "admitting" that the sailors and marines were in Iranian waters when kidnapped. Further, the mullahs are now demanding that Britain officially "admit" that their sailors and marines were in Iranian waters.

Read More...

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

The Senate Retreats to the Trough

Once again, with no recognition of the recent political successes of the Maliki government, nor the successes of the surge, nor any hint of the reality going on in Iraq, a legislative body of Congress has placed partisan politics and pork over our national security and voted to retreat from Iraq. Taking a page from the unethical acts of Nancy Pelosi, the equally unethical and cynical Harry Reid piled on 20 billion in pork to buy votes. And this time he was successful. Almost completely along party lines, Harry Reid legislated defeat in Iraq by the vote of 50-48.

To say it is maddening would be an understatement. But then it was made worse by smug comments like these from Harry Reid after the vote:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, played down the veto threat. In a speech on the Senate floor on Monday, Mr. Reid said the president was on the wrong side of public opinion. "He can swagger all he wants," Mr. Reid said, "but we have 3,241 dead Americans."


Is Senator Reid suggesting that legislation is now to be subject to a Pew poll of 1,000 people rather then informed debated on the Iraq War by our elected officials? If so, Senator Reid is superfluous. And if not, I still think him superfluous. What an utterly worthless son of a bitch he is. Just as we seem to be seeing things going right in Iraq - in large measure because of those dead Americans - he now uses their number as a justification for retreat. This man does no honor to our war dead, but rather uses them for his own partisan political gain.

The radical left wing of the Democratic Party is in control –and even the "blue dog" Democrats are giving in. It is completely clear that a number of senators understand precisely the effect that they are having on the effort in Iraq – and it is equally clear that they are either putting partisan political gain or pork above our national security, or they are simply being mowed down in their beliefs by the Kos Kids / George Soros / Moveon.Org crowd that now claim to own the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

This from Don Surber:

In June 2006, Sen. Kent Conrad said: "I do not believe that it is a wise policy to set a specific date for a withdrawal from Iraq."

While stumping for votes last September, senatorial candidate Jim Webb said: "Anyone who tells you we can set a timetable for withdrawal doesn’t understand war. And anyone who says that nothing can be done to speed a secure peace doesn’t understand America."

On March 8, Sen. Ben Nelson said: "I’m bothered by dates. I think you still have to go on conditions for staying."

On March 12, Sen.

Evan Bayh wrote
: "I, for example, am not in support of circling a date on a calendar and saying, ‘no matter what, we’re out on that date.’"


And add to that list, Harry Reid himself, along with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, as pointed out by Mitch McConnell:

Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, my good friend the Majority Leader himself said this: "As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that."


Six months after that, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, said this: "A deadline for pulling out … will only encourage our enemies to wait us out" … it would be "a Lebanon in 1985. And God knows where it goes from there." That was our friend, Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.


And three months later, Senator Clinton made the same point when she said, "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal," said Senator Clinton. "I don’t think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you." That’s the Majority Leader, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a prominent Democrat presidential candidate.

But for a misguided few who actually believe heart and soul that the Iraq war is a moral question (Bush lied, people died, war bad, must leave bad war – the Kucinich philosophy), none of the Democrats who voted for this abortion of a bill today have the courage of their convictions. They either seek partisan gain at whatever the cost to our national security, or they have been cowed, convicted and bribed into supporting a retreat.

Moreover, what I find very distressing is that none of the Republicans will fight back. This vote was a scandal -- a real one, not like the fired attorneys. Each person who voted for this needs to be called out, either for gross stupidity or hypocrisy, as applicable, and it needs to be done in the strongest of possible terms. Senate Minority Ldr McConnell is an effective speaker, but what the Republicans need now is B-1 Bob Dornan.
This also might well be the time for our friendly independent, Joe Lieberman, to reconsider a party affiliation.

Read More...

Dear Ali and Mahmoud, About Those 15 Hostages . . .

Some none too subtle messages are being air mailed to Iran today. The first and loudest was this morning's 'surprise' announcemnt from the U.S. Navy:

The US navy said on Tuesday it is staging major war games in the Gulf with two aircraft carriers for the first time since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at a time of heightened tension with Iran.

The manoeuvres involve the USS John C. Stennis, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and their battle groups.

They are being held as tensions run high between the West and the Islamic republic over Tehran's nuclear drive and the capture last week of 15 British marines and sailors in a waterway between Iran and Iraq in the northern Gulf.

"Two air wings from the aircraft carriers will conduct air warfare exercises while the surface components will conduct exercises in three general disciplines: anti-submarine, anti-surface and mine warfare," the Fifth Fleet said in a statement.

"This exercise demonstrates the importance of both strike groups ability to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the US long-standing commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in this region."
See also here. The second message is from Tony Blair,

Efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a "different phase" if diplomatic moves fail, Tony Blair has said.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's spokesman, who should have simply remained silent, later emasculated Tony Blair's remarks, noting:

The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair's remarks about a "different phase" did not refer to any extreme diplomatic action, such as expelling Iranian diplomats from Britain or military action.
Earlier, I posted my own suggestion here that Britain needs to move quickly, and that the first step should be diplomatic - i.e., an emergency meeting of the Security Council to condemn Iran's actions, etc. Jules Crittenden has posted the appropriate response if diplomacy does not quickly solve this situation. See here.


Hattip: Drudge

Read More...

EU Uber Alles

Why does this sound like a really, really bad idea? Its Germany's Prime Minister, Angela Merkel, on the 50th birthday of the EU, calling for the formation of a single EU military. And I thought it was only Chirac that was dreaming of European world conquest.

Hmmm, given the performance of our NATO allies in Afghanistan - with few notable exceptions, of which Germany is not one - I really wonder just how effective an EU army could possibly be?

And how would it work? I guess if you have the Germans as the commanders, the British as the infantry, and the French as cooks it would be okay. Of course, if you have the French in command, the Germans as the military police, and the English as the cooks, it would seem a disaster just waiting to happen.

Read More...

Taheri on Iran's Act of War

Amir Taheri has an excellent article on Iran's kidnapping of the 15 British sailors and Marines. His point is that this was no simple act of border defense, irrespective of whether the Brits had strayed into Iranian territorial waters.


We may never know what actually happened. The area where the sailors were captured is at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a border estuary that has caused two wars between Iran and Iraq since the 1970s. Iraq claims ownership of the entire estuary, while Iran wants it divided between the two neighbors. It is possible that the sailors thought they were in Iraqi waters while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard's Marines believed them to be on the Iranian side.

What is certain, however, is that the sailors would not have been captured without Tehran's approval at the highest level. The Brits based in Basra have often strayed into waters that Iran regards as its own; Iranians have also often passed into Iraqi waters.

In other words, these are almost daily incidents. The standard procedure is to warn the trespassers and guide them back to their own side of the water. If that procedure was abandoned this time, the reason must be someone's desire to provoke an incident.

If trespassing were the cause of the incident, one wonders why the Islamic Republic turns a blind eye to American vessels often straying into its so-called continental-shelf territorial waters. A casual boat ride in the Persian Gulf would offer the visitor countless examples of this on a daily basis.

It is possible that the mullahs don't yet wish to provoke a direct clash with the United States, and have used the incident with the Brits as a means of testing the waters. They may also hope that they could force London to press Washington to release the Revolutionary Guard commanders held in Baghdad in exchange for the British hostages.

The mullahs' move cannot be fortuitous: The Brits were captured on the eve of a new Security Council resolution, drafted by Britain, to impose harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

It also came after months in which the Western powers have been exerting what is known as "proximity pressure" on the Khomeinist regime. A former deputy defense minister of the Islamic Republic, Gen. Ali-Reza Askari (Asgari), was kidnapped or defected and is presumed to be in the United States. Five senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including its head of special operations, Gen. Mohammed Jafar Sahraroudi, remain under lock and key after having been arrested by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Tehran is full of rumors about supposed secret contacts established by the Americans with several senior political and military figures with a view toward a regime change. The contacts supposedly include a former prime minister and a former defense minister.

Not surprisingly, the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei appears to have concluded that the best defense is to go on the offensive. In a tough speech last week, Khamenei in effect put the Islamic Republic on a war footing. He endorsed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "no compromise" position on the nuclear issue and threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Ever since it erupted on the scene, the Khomeinist revolution has always accompanied a hardening of its position by seizing hostages. In November 1979, just eight months after seizing power, the Khomeinist regime endorsed the seizure of American diplomats as hostages in Tehran.

During the following quarter-century, the Islamic Republic was involved in seizing more than 1,000 hostages from more than 30 countries in Iran or through its Hezbollah agents in Lebanon. These included a French ambassador to Tehran, Guy Georgy, two German bankers and eight American and French journalists - plus dozens of businessmen, priests and tourists from countries as far apart as South Korea and Italy. Right now, in addition to the 15 Brits, the Islamic Republic is holding a German hostage.

Western apologists for the Khomeinist regime have already started blaming the United States for having made the mullahs nervous. The argument of the apologists is simple: Don't do anything that makes the mullahs unhappy, or else they will do more mischief.

The truth, however, is that making the mullahs nervous may be the only way of persuading them to end their defiance of the United Nations and stop trying to export Khomeinism to neighboring countries.
Read the entire article here. Without going into extensive detail, I can attest, from my one year plus spent on the DMZ in Korea, of the accuracy of Taheri's description of how minor border are regularly treated between two countries without a clear border line and who are not in open hostilities.

Read More...

Surge News - Maliki Government Reaching Out To Sunnis

In a major political development, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia leader of Iraq, and the Kurdish president of Iraq, Jalal Talibani, will introduce legislation today aimed at overcoming a major sticking point - how to treat and reintegrate former Baathists.

The lack of movement [on legislation] had . . . hampered efforts at reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites, he said, since the Sunnis have had little faith that the Shiite government would do anything concrete to help them.

Changing the de-Baathification laws was one of the political goals for the Iraqi government set by the Bush administration six months ago.

Under the proposal by the prime minister and the president, which comes on the heels of meetings held between Mr. Maliki and Sunni insurgent leaders and appears to be an effort to back up his outreach with action, all Baathists would be able to collect their pensions.

In addition, thousands more former Baathists would be allowed to hold government jobs than under the current law. Former Baathists who return to government work would have to sign a pledge that they would refrain from making political statements about the current government.

The law would also set a three-month time limit for Iraqi citizens who have complaints against former Baathists to bring a claim. Then the courts would have six months to rule. Any claims brought subsequently would be thrown out.

The goal of the new law is to take a step toward reconciling Sunnis and Shiites, said Dr. Sadiq al-Raqadi, a political adviser to Mr. Maliki.

. . . Recently, American diplomats and military officials along with Iraqi government officials, including Mr. Maliki, have reached out to Sunni militants in an effort to woo those elements of the insurgency whom Mr. Khalilzad described as “reconcilable insurgents” and isolate the most violent elements.

“There is a real struggle going on in the Sunni Arab part of Iraq between those of Al Qaeda and the other more patriotic groups who want a successful Iraq, an Iraq in which everyone’s rights is respected,” said Mr. Khalilzad. Most of these “patriotic groups” were linked to Mr. Hussein’s former government rather than to the Sunni religious militants with ties to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Khalilzad underscored that there would be no discussions with individuals linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the insurgent group that claims ties to the Qaeda organization, which has been associated with some of the most destructive attacks in Iraq.

Mr. Khalilzad noted that in the six weeks since the American-backed security plan began, attacks had dropped 25 percent. . . .

And then, in a final bit good news, we learn "Two suicide truck bombs exploded near Ramadi, but initial reports indicated they had killed only the drivers." It is so rare for an NYT peice to end on a happy note, I thought that I should point it out.

Read the whole story here. This is all good news.

Read More...

An Almost Good NYT Piece on Iran EFP's & Militia Contacts

There is a long NYT article this morning that discusses Iran's extensive involvement in supporting Iraqi Shia militias with training and, in particular, EFP's. The article carefully and thoroughly tracks the dawning realization among U.S. officials that Iran was directly involved in the violence in Iraq through the IRGC, the Quds Force, and through Hezbollah.

I call the article almost good because, while informative and without spin through much of the article, it falls into traditional Democratic bias at the end, finishing with the ludicrous suggestion that we could get Iran to stop their bellicose and murderous ways if only we would sit down and talk to the mad mullahs. One can almost hear the DNC singing Kumbaya punctuated with the sounds of EFP's in the background. See here and here.

Read More...

A Big Win for the Surge

This from the AP:

The US military has captured the leaders of a car-bombing ring blamed for killing hundreds of Iraqis.

The news came as the departing US ambassador said Americans are in ongoing talks with insurgent representatives to try to persuade them to turn against al-Qaeda.

The US command said one of the car-bombers, Haitham al-Shimari, was suspected in the "planning and execution of the majority of car bombs which have killed hundreds of Iraqi citizens in Sadr City," a Shi'ite enclave of Baghdad.

Another, identified as Haidar al-Jafar, was second-in-command of a cell that killed some 900 "innocent" Iraqis and wounded almost 2,000, the military said. Three other men believed connected to that cell also were in custody.

The suspected bombers were rounded up last week by American forces during continuing security sweeps in Azamiyah, the Sunni stronghold in northern Baghdad, the military statement said.

Read the article here. For additional news from the surge, see here.

Hattip: Jules Crittenden

Read More...

 

View My Stats