Ethical Problems In Our Military?

The Washington Post has a front page article titled "Troops At Odds With Ethical Standards." I challenge you to read this and then decide which is the ethically challenged party here, our soldiers or the Washington Post that ran the story on their front page under that headline:

More than one-third of U.S. soldiers in Iraq surveyed by the Army said they believe torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents, the Pentagon disclosed yesterday. Four in 10 said they approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier.

How is holding that belief the failure of an ethical standard? Acting on it would be a failure of a standard under current U.S. policy, but that is a different animal entirely. Wanting to do harm to someone and actually doing it are two widely different situations.

Further, given what our soldiers have been exposed to in Iraq - the utter lack of any morality on the part of an enemy who revels in civilian carnage, makes use of human shields, and has on several occasions used children to effect suicide bombings - it is no surprise whatsoever that many a soldier feels that torturing these bastards is appropriate to save an American life or to stop such future acts of mindless carnage. That is not the failure of an ethical standard, its simply a different standard then one finds being bandied about several thousand miles away in the safety of the ACLU headquarters, or in a speech being given by Ted Kennedy or Dick Durbin.

In addition, about two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed said they would not report a team member for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily.

That is part of building a team that has to rely on one another for their own life on a 24/7 basis. Its not desirable, but it is not surprising either. I would like to know similar results from major police departments in high crime areas to assess whether this is unusual. I am willing to bet it is not.

"Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," the Army report stated.

I wonder how the question was framed and what were the reasons given for the answers? To the extent that it means soldiers are just pissed because of the difficulty distinguishing enemy from non-combatants, that is one thing. Acting out on that frustration is something else entirely. But the Washington Post again does not answer that question - yet. We are left to contemplate how evil and unethical our soldiers are for a bit longer.

About 10 percent of the 1,767 troops in the official survey -- conducted in Iraq last fall -- reported that they had mistreated civilians in Iraq, such as kicking them or needlessly damaging their possessions.

That is not surprising in a group as large of the army, that ten percent actually act out their frustrations or sadism. The numbers do not jibe with the answer to the above question on dignity and respect. In any event, insuring that this does not happen is a function of leadership at the platoon and squad level. If isolated incidents occur among ten percent of the soldiers, that would seem just unfortunate reality - again, not a systemic breach of ethics.

Army researchers "looked under every rock, and what they found was not always easy to look at," said S. Ward Casscells, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs. The report noted that the troops' statements are at odds with the "soldier's rules" promulgated by the Army, which forbid the torture of enemy prisoners and state that civilians must be treated humanely.

Hmmm, I wonder if the researchers asked the soldiers why they had different rules? Without that answer, it is impossible to evaluate whether the rules are unrealistic for the situation, or whether we need to be doing a better job with our junior NCO's and officers.

Maj. Gen. Gale S. Pollock, the acting Army surgeon general, cast the report as positive news. "What it speaks to is the leadership that the military is providing, because they're not acting on those thoughts," she said. "They're not torturing the people."

WOW. Finally, after telling us about how bad are our soldiers, the Washington Post finally gets to the meat of it. This is ridiculous. This is should be the lead paragraph, not all this other crap which is just pure insinuation under a misleading headline. Good job Washington Post. Suppose you might be running a post on al Qaeda ethics anytime soon, just for balance?

But human rights activists said the report lends support to their view that the abuse of Iraqi civilians by U.S. military personnel was not isolated to some bad apples at Abu Ghraib and a few other detention facilities but instead is more widespread. "These are distressing results," said Steven R. Shapiro, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "They highlight a failure to adequately train and supervise our soldiers."

My suggestion, let's embed the ACLU and other human rights activists with units in Iraq so they can get a dose of reality to go along with their utopian ideals and beliefs that the U.S. and its military are the source of all evil. Let them get a different perspective in an embed. Somebody call al Qaeda, let's see if they will accept a delegation.

The study also found that the more often soldiers are deployed, the longer they are deployed each time; and the less time they spend at home, the more likely they are to suffer mental health problems such as combat trauma, anxiety and depression. That result is particularly notable given that the Pentagon has sent soldiers and Marines to Iraq multiple times and recently extended the tours of thousands of soldiers to 15 months from 12 months.

"The Army is spread very thin, and we need it to be a larger force for the number of missions that we were being asked to address for our nation," Pollock said.

Yes. This is precisely why increasing the size of our military needs to be at the top of the list of Congressional priorities. This is a legitimate screw up by Bush and company. It is not, however, a reason to declare surrender.

. . . Overall, 20 percent of the soldiers surveyed and 15 percent of the Marines appeared to suffer from depression, anxiety or stress, the Army reported. That was in keeping with findings of past surveys, as was the conclusion that more than 40 percent of soldiers reported low morale in their units.

The stress and anxiety numbers actually seem low. I wonder how they match up with similar complaints of depression, stress and anxiety in the U.S. population? Will have to ask Dr. Sanity that one. As to the low morale, I wonder which unit types were asked that question, and whether there was any evaluation of the basis for the low morale. It is a different problem entirely if the cooks in Division Headquarters Company have low morale, as opposed to infantry soldiers who are being asked to carry the fight to the enemy. And I would love to know what impact Harry Reid and Jack Murtha have played into the low morale? Wouldn't you?

Read the entire article here. It says alot, tells us next to nothing, and besmirches our troops. Just another day at the Washington Post. I will see if I can get a copy of the report and try to fill in the gaping blanks. There are no systemic ethical problems with our soldiers - just the Washington Post's news desk.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran's Economic Time Bomb

Even as the Supreme Guide and the Supreme Mouth of Iran, Khamenei and Ahmedinejad respectively, seek to go nuclear, it may well be the local Iranians who go nuclear first. The clerics of Tehran and the IRGC have never paid that much attention to the economy, other then to squeeze every last dime from it that they can get. The Iranian economic system is famed for its corruption. But, up to now, subsidy of many everyday products, such as gas, have kept the middle class from joining the many segments of Iranian society ready to go into open revolt. Now as the economics get ever worse, the clerics are seeking to lay all the blame on Ahmedinejad and jettison him in hopes of keeping their skins intact and their bank accounts solvent (Allah be praised):

The play has ended and the 15 British pawns have returned to their families. The verdict is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad neither enhanced his image as the divinely inspired warrior, who humbled the British lion, nor as the humanitarian, who freed the fifteen helpless prisoners.

The public was not fixated on the television drama that Ahmadinejad presented. Instead, Iranians are watching the prices of tomatoes and other basic necessities rising at between 20% and 40% per annum, while salaries and wages are scarcely moving.

On 21 May, the long awaited next economic blow will strike when gasoline rationing goes into effect. Iranian drivers will be limited to three litres per day at the subsidized cost of 40 cents per gallon. They will be permitted to purchase more than the three litres, but anything beyond the limit will be at a higher price. What that higher price will be has not been announced.

Rationing is the final admission by the Ahmadinejad administration that the program of promised prosperity that began a mere two years ago has failed and has brought only inflation, hardship and unemployment. The president’s preoccupation with verbal warfare with the rest of the world has done nothing to improve the lives of the Iranian public.

. . . [Ahmedinejad's recent] statements to the outside world may reduce the level of tension, but his political survival does not depend upon what foreigners think. His survival will be determined by what Iranians do; and they have spoken already. President Ahmadinejad’s days are numbered. His failed policies have alienated the lower income portion of the population that had been is strongest supporters.

He ignored in December the discontent of the public when his faction was defeated in the local elections. In spite of the severe losses, he continued his confrontations with the U.S. and the U.N.

Although he failed to heed the warning from the disenchanted voters, the conservative clergy that had elevated him from obscurity as the mayor of Tehran to the prominence of the presidency, were aware of his falling star. In January, while Ahmadinejad was visiting Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and other leaders with an anti-American view, the unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei withdrew his support. Since then, the Supreme Leader has retreated into the safety of the shadows, while Ahmadinejad remains exposed to the public scorn.

Blame for everything that has gone wrong with the economy is being placed directly upon Ahmadinejad. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that “economics is for donkeys,” but he is demonstrating by his silence that he understands just how hard a hungry donkey can kick.

Ahmadinejad is learning that his former supporters have abandoned him and that is personal connections with the divine world will not protect him from the angry public. For that, he is relying upon the police and brute force. Any demonstration is being met with police batons and arrests. Opposing newspapers have been shut down; bloggers are being required to register. Once ignored morality codes are being enforced with a new vigour. Women wearing Western fashions are being warned that they can be flogged and barbers are under orders to provide only Islamic haircuts or face revocation of their business licenses.

The crack down gives signs of a pre emptive strike by a government preparing for worse conditions ahead. The real trouble is expected when the full impact of the rationing regulations is felt. During April, the first sign was an increase in the minimum charge by taxis that are often used for car-pooling. One more squeeze on already stretched home budgets could very easily be the breaking point that could send people into the streets to demand the resignation of the president. Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian economist, believes that rationing will stir social disorder and further economic stresses. His words are given credibility by the open grumbling that is being heard on the streets.

Khamenei and the “Grey Elite,” the conservative clergy that dominates much of Iranian life, seems to be preparing for Ahmadinejad’s departure. When the protesting demonstrators turn into the screaming mobs that want someone to pay for the public misfortune, the clergy will need a scapegoat; and no one fills that role better than Ahmadinejad, who has spent the two years of his administration cultivating the image of the firebrand.

Waiting in the wings to replace Ahmadinejad is Brigadier General Mohamed Baqer Qalibaf. Like Ahmadinejad, he was a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG).

Mohamed Baqer Qalibaf was chief of the national police and succeeded Ahmadinejad to the office of mayor of Tehran. While Ahmadinejad has been portrayed often as a mystic, Mohamed Baqer Qalibaf is described as a “pragmatic conservative,” a man concerned with civic improvements and not with international confrontations.

. . . This is not a change in the essence of the system that gives the clergy its privileges. It is a change only of style in an effort to preserve the status quo, while giving the appearance of substantive change. A brief look at Qalibaf’s credentials reveals a man dedicated to the preservation of the current system.

How quickly the change comes will depend upon the determination of the demonstrators in the streets. When the mob demands blood, the Ayatollah will serve up the head of Ahmadinejad to satisfy the blood lust.

For the outside world, it should bring a respite from the months of threats and bluster. At that point, how much of a risk premium has been built into the price of crude oil should reveal itself. Whatever it is, the oil markets are likely to experience a softening in price, which actions by the George Bush Administration is making a more likely possibility.

. . . Now, we wait. Already, the grumbling in the streets has begun. Somewhere down the road in the near future, as people run out of gas, Ahmadinejad will run out of time. The neglected people will openly express their rage, and the pretence of change will come. It should for a while lower the pressure in the region; and it will all depend upon the anger of the mob.

Read the entire article here. My own personal suggestion to Khamenei and his corrupt and bloody clerics is that they pacify the mobs by suggesting that they eat some cake.

Read More...

Summary only...

Girls Gone Wild . . . in Saudi Arabia?

Unless my eyes deceive me . . . Ibn Wahhab must be rolling over in his unmarked grave at the moment. It seems there is an internet sex revolution in Ridyah. See here.

(H/T Instapundit)

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred: The Early Days

In 1996, Fred Thompson won election as Senator from Tennessee, coming from a large deficit to outpace his rival. Knox Metropulse tells the story, and how they see it reasonably likely that Fred Thompson can succeed in much the same way in his run for the presidency:

. . . Fred Thompson, on his first campaign appearance in East Tennessee, assumed (not incorrectly) we were a group of local rednecks. We surrounded him like a bear in a ring and started peppering him with questions. The death penalty. Abortion. Taxes. Gun Control. To each question Thompson replied with a long, carefully guarded lawyerly answer. . . .

As I recall it was our consensus opinion that Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper, a pretty good conservative, would eat this guy alive in the upcoming Senate race. Thompson's answers sounded like Belle Meade cocktail party chit-chat, rambling and evasive and politically correct. We were naturally suspicious of him anyway; he was U.S. Sen. Howard Baker's protégé. You know Baker—the guy conservatives say enabled Jimmy Carter to give away the Panama Canal. The Tennessee Conservative Union has a reputation as an anti-income tax group, but the organization was originally formed to fight the Panama Canal decision.

The myth has arisen that Thompson has never had a hard political race. At the beginning of the 1994 Senate campaign he was down 20 points to Cooper, and East Tennessee conservatives were just not that impressed. . . .

. . . As the campaign wore on that spring and summer Thompson seemed to begin to remember that bike plant and the people he worked with and grew up with. He began to set aside the lawyer and Senate staffer persona he had taken on over the years. His speeches became shorter. More to the point. He started to connect with people.

I think the turning point came at Mule Day in Columbia, in the spring of 1994. He put on jeans and boots and got on a horse and rode in the parade. He was a huge success; the crowd went wild. He kept the cowboy boots, and often, the jeans. He famously mounted up in a red pickup truck and toured around the state. The stuffy lawyer disappeared. Instead there as an assured public persona that connected with people on a very personal level.

Given Thompson's movie roles and his role on the current television series Law & Order , his critics might say he was just an actor who finally got into the good old boy role. His friends would point out — he ain't that great an actor.

Lamar Alexander wore a plaid shirt and walked across Tennessee, but no one ever confused him with a good old boy.

The red truck has been derided as a gimmick since Thompson had spent his adult life as a Washington lobbyist and an attorney. The Cooper campaign suggested a limo was more his style. But if the truck had not been authentic it would have been about as successful as Michael Dukakis in a tank—the photo op that came to symbolize a losing 1988 presidential campaign. Fred fit in the truck. Dukakis didn't fit in the tank.

At another political event in early summer 1994 I noticed that the crowds that used to come to cheer on Sundquist were still enthusiastic for him, but the crowds went nuts for “Fred.” He was now the focus of political gatherings, and he got mobbed afterwards.

Major Garrett is now a reporter for the Fox cable news channel. In 1994 he was a political reporter for the Washington Times . He came down and followed Fred on a tour of East Tennessee. After a hard day of campaigning we were sitting on the front porch and I asked him what he thought.

He described an incident from that afternoon. They stopped at a convenience store in Sevier County. They left the red truck in the parking lot; there was no one else there. They got soft drinks and Fred spent some time talking to the store clerk. When they came outside, cars and trucks were pulling into the parking lot and people were gathered around the truck. Fred pulled the tail gate down, got up and gave a short speech, and everyone hooted and hollered.

Garrett said he had covered political campaigns all over the country that summer and the usual problem for politicians was trying to find a crowd and jump in front of it. He was amazed that Fred could conjure one up in an empty parking lot in rural Sevier County.

It was that rock-star quality that led Thompson to win the Senate seat. As a quote from a book about that election had it: “People in Tennessee liked Jim Cooper. But they loved Fred.”

The lawyer we had dismissed the previous summer as hopeless had become a natural. His frustrations with the conventions of political campaigning led him to just cast them aside and do it his way. The question now becomes whether he can cast aside the traditional method of running for president and invent his own way of doing it. The probability now is that Thompson will enter the presidential race, possibly by next month. It is not likely Thompson would put Baker, Bill Frist, Zach Wamp, Jimmy Duncan and Beth Harwell out there on a limb heading a Draft Fred movement were he not serious about running.

. . . But the key to Thompson's hesitation may lie elsewhere: It's what presidential candidates have traditionally had to do to get elected. You go hat in hand and you beg money from people who have had enough success in life to give them a sense of entitlement. If you've had the ability to make millions selling plumbing fixtures, shouldn't you have some input on the next Secretary of State?

It is this sort of system that produces a George Bush as a presidential candidate. I had a conversation with a rich young man, more thoughtful than most, who has had some success in politics. He had been in one of those rooms with Bush, everyone there just like him, just like Bush. He wondered if Bush ever met anyone other than the people just like him—wealthy, confident and privileged. Is this a system that produces a president that has any idea how most of the people in America live?

The worst time running for president is in the early months, going door to door like a condo salesman, asking the guys with check books to invest in your campaign. Mitt Romney is great at it. Thompson hates it. His strategy may be to come in in the middle of this campaign, capitalize on the discomfort Republicans have with the field and gamble on good poll numbers to create excitement. If that happens, the money will come.

. . . Can Thompson win? Since 1976 four out of five presidents have been from the South: Georgia, Arkansas and Texas. Can he win the Republican nomination, with primaries dominated by conservatives?

If Thompson can convince anti-Baker Tennessee conservatives of his conservative credentials, he shouldn't have any trouble with national conservative groups. . . .

National conservative groups gave Thompson high marks during his Senate career, giving him better credentials in Republican primaries than McCain or Giuliani. Business groups gave him 90 to 100 point ratings, the Christian Coalition gave him a 92, the American Conservative Union gave him an 85. The National Taxpayers Union gave him an A rating. The NRA, which has problems with Giuliani, McCain and Romney, has consistently supported Thompson.

. . . Fred Thompson's campaign in Tennessee demonstrated that he does not consider conventional campaigning as a strait-jacket from which he cannot escape. If he chooses to run for president he will do it on his own terms. It is a risky strategy. If he fails he can expect the political establishment to pillory him for his deviation from orthodoxy. The “Fred is lazy” tag will come back. He may lose the nomination. But nine out of 10 of the current GOP candidates, running conventional campaigns, will lose as well.

The problem with our politics is that the people who can get elected president are the people we wouldn't want as president. If there is anybody who can upset the status quo, create a new dynamic and overcome the process it would be Fred Dalton Thompson.

Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Left Goes Off the Deep End

The far left long ago jettisoned the concept of intellectual honesty in favor of partisan attacks whose only measure is one of effect. And that philophy has taken over the discourse of almost the entire left since the expulsion of Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party last year. It is readilly apparent in much of the MSM journalism coming out of papers today, such as the NYT and from certain writers at the Washington Post. Thus, these observations today from the NRO come as no surprise:

First, in perhaps the cheapest of cheap shots ever, the Los Angeles Times, which really no longer deserves to be taken seriously as a newspaper, suggests Fred Thompson has to answer for playing a [racist]:

So can "Law & Order" actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) become the first presidential candidate with this credit? Thompson played a white supremacist, spewing anti-Semitic comments and fondling an autographed copy of "Mein Kampf" on a television drama 19 years ago.

His colleagues say that he was just an actor putting everything he had into playing the role of a charismatic racist, named Knox Pooley, in three episodes of CBS' hit show "Wiseguy" in 1988. "Do you call Tom Cruise a killer because he played one in a movie?" asked show creator and writer Stephen J. Cannell.

This sounds like an Onion parody of attack journalism, but it's not. They continue:

But in the age of YouTube, this performance could raise an intriguing political question: How does a performer eyeing a presidential run deal with a video history that can be downloaded, taken out of context, chopped into embarrassing pieces and then distributed endlessly though cyberspace? Some conservative political blogs are already considering the problem.

For this, they cite Patterico, who predicted the media would try to use this role as a villain from 1980s television as a ham-handed attack on Thompson. Guess he was right.

They also quote his character's entire diatribe. As if it's in any way relevant to Fred Thompson's potential candidacy.

. . . Also coming my way from Ace of Spades, news of a Rasmussen poll showing that 35 percent of Democrats believe George W. Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were coming and let them happen.

It's tough to be a "uniter, not a divider" when 35 percent of your opposition is insane.

Read the entire post here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Saudi Women Given Freedom To Air Their Grievances

Since the attacks in Ridyah by al Qaeda a few years ago, and with the most recent foiled attack, the ruling House of Saud - whose foundational legitimacy is dependent on Wahhabi Islam - is nonetheless allowing ancilary attacks on the religion as they try to figure out how to defang the beast before it eats them. Thus, it appears we are seeing some leeway being given to those who would voice their grievances at odds with the domgma of Wahhabi Islam. These are excepts from articles on the treatment of women appearing this year in major Saudi newspapers:

Preachers Spread Distorted Notions About Women

Columnist Dr. Hasna Al-Quna'ir wrote in the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh: "Women are victims of [the preachers'] discourse... [which is intended to] condemn them and to prove them inferior [to men] in their piety and in their mental [abilities], [based on] a shameless distortion of the Prophet's hadith...

"Our TV channels are full of old and new preachers who convey their views directly to the public... Answering [viewers' questions], they burst with accusations against members of the [female] sex. They excite the viewers' emotions, entreating them to defend the virtues that the women corrupt...

"An example is the answer given by one of the preachers [to a viewer who asked] about consulting with his wife and seeking her advice. [The preacher told him]: Do not consult with her, for she is emotional and her opinions are not valid... As evidence, he cited the Prophet's hadith [which says]: 'a tribe that nominates a woman [as leader] will not succeed'... Many preachers refuse to acknowledge that this hadith... was uttered in [specific] historical circumstances and in a particular context. The Prophet never meant it as a ruling that applies to all women, in every place and at all times...

"Another preacher incited fathers, brothers and husbands against their daughters, sisters and wives, saying that a girl who is not beaten from an early age grows up to be a rebellious woman, difficult to control... This preacher [also] said that a woman who leaves her home without a veil is like [a woman] who goes out naked. He warned the Muslim women against wearing their abayas [a long gown] around their shoulders [instead of covering their heads as well], saying that this was the main reason that women are seduced and fall [into sin]... There was [a preacher] who warned women against shaking a man's hand, saying that, according to one of the sheiks, a woman who shakes the hand of a man that is not her husband is guilty of... 'adultery of the hand'...

"The question is why some Muslims have [developed] this dehumanizing view of women, which does not respect [the women's] humanity and honor. [This situation] stems from disregarding important factors... such as the historical circumstances and the specific context which formed the background for some of the religious laws and rules that [discriminate] against women. It also stems from the failure to distinguish between religious duties pertaining to rituals - which may be subject to absolute principles - and rules of behavior, which are controversial and are not subject to absolute laws, such as [the custom of] covering the face...

"This is what led to these distorted views and to the [development] of rigid thought patterns regarding women which are not open to debate, and which are accepted by the followers and students [of these preachers] who endorse extremist views. The woman is the victim of this insular culture, and her only salvation would be a reorganization of the cultural structure of [our] entire society."


Saudi Women Are Subject to Countless Prohibitions

Saudi columnist Fatima Al-Faqih examined the question of discrimination against women, trying to assess it in a detailed and objective manner. She wrote in the Saudi daily Al-Watan:

"Are Saudi women actually deprived [of their rights]? [They] are forbidden to drive, forbidden to travel without permission, forbidden to stay alone at a hotel without permission, forbidden to name their own children without [a man's] consent... forbidden to take out a passport without permission... forbidden to leave their homes without permission... forbidden to take a job without permission... forbidden to change the color of their abayas, forbidden to go to school or to the university without permission... forbidden to purchase shares or to open to a [bank] account in their children's name without permission.

"[A woman] is not allowed to expose her face in some cities of the kingdom... [She] is not allowed to marry without permission... not allowed to stay married if [one of] her male relatives decides that her husband's [tribal] lineage is inferior to hers... not allowed to sue for divorce without apologizing and paying a fine, not allowed to keep her children after the divorce, unless she gets permission... not allowed to hold a senior position in the private or public sectors, not allowed to vote or run for office... not allowed to travel alone with a chauffeur... not allowed to annoy her husband, and finally, a woman's voice is considered [a form of] defilement, and she is forbidden to speak in public, so that her affairs will remain shrouded in secrecy.

"A researcher [studying the limitations on women] would [probably] stop here, since the list is endless, and since he would conclude that whoever doubts the [injustice] inflicted on women either lacks awareness or derives some benefit from the discrimination. The damage [caused by this discrimination] is obvious, and the solution has been delayed, causing the problem to grow [even] more severe. There is need for immediate intervention in order to stop the deterioration." . . .

Read the entire post here. And if you have not read it, do see this poem by Wujiha al-Huwaider.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fredenomics

The day after the GOP presidential hopefuls minus one debated in a horrid format (limited to short sound bite answers) and over some ridiculous questions ("Do you personally believe in evolution?" Who cares?), the minus one spoke. Fred Thompson spoke last night at a function in California. It was carried on C-span. The speech touched on a lot of issues, but the gravitas was on economic, trade and tax policy. And I have to tell you, when a presidential candidate discussing those isues starts referring to Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations penned the same year as The Declaration of Independence, that is a very good thing. Here are some of Mr. Thompson's remarks

A lot of Americans . . . are concerned about the way things are going in our country right now. Some fear we may be in the first stages of decline. We've heard this malaise talk before.

Of course Iraq is a large part of it. Not only is it tough going, but the effort is besieged on all sides. From those playing the most crass kind of politics with it at home to criticism from around the world.

Even at home, as we enjoy the benefits from one of the best economies we've ever had, people seem uncertain; they raise concerns about global competition or a growing economic disparity among our citizens.

These are challenges. But how we react to them is more important than the challenges themselves. Some want us, to the extent possible, to withdraw from the world that presents us with so many problems, in the hope they will go away. Some would push us towards protectionist trade policies. Others see a solution in raising taxes and redistributing the income among our citizens.

Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.

Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the country was.

Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional dollar collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as two dollars worse off.

To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible. This isn't anything ideological, and it really isn't some great insight. It's common sense arithmetic.

That's why the economy booms when taxes are cut. When the Kennedy tax cuts were passed in the 1960s, the economy boomed. When Reagan cut taxes in 1981, we went from economic malaise to a new morning in America. And when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, he took a declining economy he inherited to an economic expansion -- despite 9-11, the NASDAQ bubble and corporate scandals.

The Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes. They only want to target the rich, they say. A word of advice to anyone in the middle class -- don't stand anywhere near that target. Wouldn't it be great if, instead of worrying so much about how to divide the pie, we could work together on how to make the pie bigger?

On globalization -- we're not afraid of it. It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere else in the world. Same thing goes for services, which are increasingly driving our economy. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we're the world's best example of that. So, why do we want to take investment dollars out of growth, and invest it in government?

I'd say cash flow to the government is already going quite well. Over the past year our current tax structure generated record levels of revenue for Washington. In fact it's time to seriously consider what we're getting for our "investment" in government.

For many years, several functions of the federal government have been descending into a sorry state of mismanagement and lack of accountability. I published a 68-page report on government's waste, duplication and inability to carry out some of its basic responsibilities. That was back in 2001 before 9-11, and it got little attention. Now the government's shortcomings are affecting our national security and are getting a lot of attention.

The growth of government is not solving these problems; it's causing a lot of them. Every level of new bureaucracy that is created develops a level of bureaucracy beneath it, which creates another one. Pretty soon there is no accountability in the system. A new head of a department or agency comes in from out of town and, after a protracted confirmation fight, wants to spend his or her few years in Washington making great policy and solving national problems, not fighting with their own bureaucrats. So they just let well enough alone. Then you start seeing the results. Departments that can't pass an audit, computer systems that don't work, intelligence breakdowns, people in over their heads.

Yet people in both parties continue to try to federalize and regulate at the national level more and more aspects of American society -- things that have traditionally been handled at the state and local level. We must remember that we have states to serve as policy laboratories for innovation and competition. That's how we got welfare reform. Our system also allows for the diversity of our large country. Our attitude should be, let the federal government do what it is supposed to be doing -- competently. Then maybe we will give it something else to do.

The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. . . .

Speaking of reforms and our economy, there is nothing more urgent than the fate that is awaiting our Social Security and Medicare programs. The good news is that we are living longer. However, we don't have enough young working people to finance these programs from their taxes.

People say the programs are going bankrupt. They won't go bankrupt. Even as these programs sap every dime of the government's revenue, the folks in Washington will raise the taxes necessary to cover the problem. At this rate the federal government is going to wind up as nothing more than a transfer agent -- transferring wealth from one generation to another. It will devastate our economy.

. . . So the entitlement problem gets kicked a little further down the road. This action is based on the premise that our generation is too greedy to help the next generation. I believe just the opposite is true. If grandmom and granddad think that a little sacrifice will help their grandchildren when they get married, try to buy a home or have children, they will respond to a credible call to make that sacrifice -- if they don't think that the sacrifice is going down some government black hole.

. . . It's clear with close numbers in the House and the Senate we need bipartisanship to have any chance at real reform in any of these areas. And there are many responsible people who are willing to try to make it happen. But the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people are demanding it. That's why leaders of reform and hopefully our next President, will have a mandate to go directly to the American people with truth and clarity.

These days in Washington, there's an awful lot of talk about the need for conversation -- that we should talk more to our nation's enemies; that we should speak "truth to power." However the speakers are usually turned in the wrong direction. Instead of talking to each other, leaders need to be speaking more to the American people.

The message would be simple: "My friends we have entered a new era. We are going to be tested in many ways, possibly under attack and for a long time. It's time to take stock and be honest with ourselves. We're going to have to do a lot of things better. Here's what we need to do and here's why. I know that, now that you're being called upon, you will do whatever is necessary for the sake of our country and for future generations. You always have."

When the American people respond to that, as I know they will, you will have your bipartisanship.

Read the entire remarks here. As to the report Fred Thompson cited on waste in government that he published in 2001, find Volume 1 here and Volume 2 here.

e-Run, Fred, e-Run.

Read More...

Summary only...

News From the Surge

Dinah Lord has been collecting the latest reports from Iraq. The U.S. and Iraqi soldiers captured 16 members of an Iranian linked cell in Sadr City:

The US command in Baghdad announced the arrest Friday morning of 16 suspected members of a terror cell with strong ties to Iran in Sadr City, the capital's massive mainly Shiite slum. In a statement, US troops said the cell was in charge of transporting anti-tank mines and weapons from Iran to Iraq and transfering militants fin the opposite direction for training. The US military also said intelligence reports showed that the cell was part of a network carrying out attacks and abductions in Iraq and had ties to criminal groups in both countries.

I do wonder when we are finally going to make the mullahs start paying very dearly for their actions in Iran. The fiction that Khamenei does not know what is going on is getting very difficult to stomach, and refusing to hurt Iran very badly for this meddling will simply encourage ever greater interferenace.

Dinah also posts on a report that U.S. and Iraqi soldiers have taken sucucessfully concluded an offensive to retake the Tahrir neighborhood in Baqouba, northwest of Baghdad. The area had become a stronghold for al Qaeda in Iraq.

And then, in what cannot be considered bad news, there is a report of another major split from inside the insurgent ranks, with at least one group now vowing to target al Qaeda and the U.S. forces, leaving civilians alone. That's fine by me.

Update: And see this from Bill Rogio. Othr then the fighting, by far the most important to come out of Iraq today is the report that the Anbar Salvation Council incrasing its membership to include one of the major tribes who originally welcomed al Qaeda, and the Council is expanding its membership outside Anbrar, including into Diyala Province, where the hardest fighting against al Qaeda and its affiliates is occurring today:

The news of al Jubouri's death comes as the Anbar Salvation Council scored a major victory against al Qaeda in Iraq. Sam Dagher of the Christian Science Monitor reports on how the Anbar Salvation Council, led by Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Rishawi, turned the Albu Fahd tribe against al Qaeda. The Albu Fahd was one of the six original Anbari tribes to support al Qaeda and its Islamic State in Iraq. These six tribes are known in some military intelligence circles as the "Sinister Six". The Albu Fahd [described as the Bu-Fahed] has now joined the Anbar Salvation Council and pledged to throw its weight behind the fight against al Qaeda.

"Winning over the Bu-Fahed tribe was a coup," said Mr. Dagher, who covered the tribal meeting where the Albu Fahd moved into the camp of the Anbar Salvation Council. "It had been one of Al Qaeda's staunchest supporters, and traces its lineage to the birthplace of the puritan form of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism in the Saudi Arabian province of Najd. It formally threw its lot behind Sheikh Abdel-Sattar Abu Risha." the pickup of the Albu Fahd comes as the Anbar Salvation Council has made gains outside of its home province and is expanding in Diyala, Salahadin and Baghdad.

In the city of Baqubah in the al Qaeda sanctuary of Diyala province, U.S. forces retook the Tahrir neighborhood after a week of hard fighting. U.S. forces encountered hard fighting and prepared al Qaeda traps and fighting positions. The 1920s Revolution Brigades, a Sunni insurgent group now aligned with the Anbar Salvation Council, fought pitched battles against al Qaeda in Baqubah before being forced to withdrawal after running out of ammunition.

Read More...

Summary only...

Of Mid Terms Across the Pond & Hanging Chads in Edinburgh

Drum roll please. The midterm elections were held in the UK yesterday. And the winners are? Well, that's a good question.

We don't know in Scotland yet because about 100,000 of the ballots got invalidated.

Confusing ballot papers were being blamed for as many as 100,000 invalid votes in elections to the Scottish Parliament and councils north of the border, potentially affecting crucial contests in a neck-and-neck fight between Labour and the Scottish National Party for dominance at the devolved Holyrood parliament.

Sound familiar? After our own Florida debacle in 2000, I can say that this is not something I would wish upon any friendly nation. I extend my deepest sympathies to the Brits. You're in for a long and muddy slog on that one.

As to the other results from the British mid-terms, they are a bit clearer. Tories won a fair amount, apparently . . . though I am still not quite sure how much. Labour lost a fair bit, though they are claiming that they didn't lose so bad that its a clear threat to knock them from power at the next general election:

Tony Blair insisted today Labour had "a perfectly good springboard to go on and win the next General Election," despite taking a battering by voters from the South-East to Scotland.

In a night of drama, Labour lost hundreds of English council seats, saw power slip away in the Welsh Assembly and woke to see the totemic fight against the SNP for the Scottish Parliament on a knife-edge.

As to how much of that is spin from TB, I have not a clue. And I think Red Ken is still going to be Mayor of London. That is a real travesty. If anyone from the UK would care to weigh in on all of this, it would be much appreciated. We have not had a good handle on British politics over here since about 1776.

You can find some articles on the election and the Scottish debacle at The Telegraph, The Times, Daily Mail, and the Guardian.

Update: Some questions answered by EU Referendum:

With the Lib-Dems also losing 242 seats and Labour losing 485, the big winners were the Tories with 875 gains, far in excess of expectations.

However, despite desperate attempts to "spin" otherwise, the Tories have not made the breakthrough in the North. In fact, they lost control of Kirkless, they lost councillors in Bradford and Leeds and halved the number of Tories in Sheffield from two down to one.

Although early days, what this seems to be is the resurgence of traditional two-party politics, with a strong element of the North-South divide. The Tories are strong in the South while Labour is still maintaining its grip over the metropolitan Northern councils.

What might be happening is that the Tory deserters, scenting power, are returning to the fold, bolstered by others who detest Blair – and have no love for Gordon Brown. On the other hand, Labour maintains its core vote but is been strengthened by those who hate Cameron, and would not vote for him at any price.

If this is the case, we can expect to see a greater polarisation of politics, as Gordon Brown takes over and the gap to the next general election shrinks. But each side will be recruiting not supporters, but temporary allies who have in common only their detestation of the other side.

Update: And the BBC, Britain's own publicly funded version of the New York Times -its left wing bias is legendary - is caught trying to spin the Labour debacle.

Read More...

Summary only...

Krauthammer, Tenet & Revisionst History

Charles Krauthammer weighs in on George Tenet's myopic view of events over the past 16 years, and finds his characterizations a bit more then wanting:

. . . Tenet presents himself as a pathetic victim and scapegoat of an administration that was hell-bent on going to war, slam dunk or not.

Tenet writes as if he assumes no one remembers anything. For example: ``There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat.''

Does he think no one remembers President Bush explicitly rejecting the imminence argument in his 2003 State of the Union address in front of just about the largest possible world audience? Said the president, ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent'' -- and he was not one of them. That in a post-9/11 world, we cannot wait for tyrants and terrorists to gentlemanly declare their intentions. Indeed, elsewhere in the book Tenet concedes that very point: ``It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise.''

Tenet also makes what he thinks is the damning and sensational charge that the administration, led by Vice President Cheney, had been focusing on Iraq even before 9/11. In fact, he reports, Cheney asked for a CIA briefing on Iraq for the president even before they had been sworn in.

This is odd? This is news? For the entire decade following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was the single greatest threat in the region and therefore the most important focus of U.S. policy. U.N. resolutions, congressional debates and foreign policy arguments were seized with the Iraq question and its many post-Gulf War complications -- the WMDs, the inspection regimes, the cease-fire violations, the no-fly zones, the progressive weakening of sanctions.

Iraq was such an obsession of the Clinton administration that Clinton ultimately ordered an air and missile attack on its WMD installations that lasted four days. This was less than two years before Bush won the presidency. Is it odd that the administration following Clinton's should share its extreme concern about Iraq and its weapons?

Tenet is not the only one to assume a generalized amnesia about the recent past. One of the major myths (or, more accurately, conspiracy theories) about the Iraq War -- that it was foisted upon an unsuspecting country by a small band of neoconservatives -- also lives blissfully detached from history.

The decision to go to war was made by a war Cabinet consisting of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. No one in that room could even remotely be considered a neoconservative. Nor could the most important non-American supporter of the war to this day -- Tony Blair, father of new Labour.

The most powerful case for the war was made at the 2004 Republican convention by John McCain in a speech that was resolutely ``realist.'' On the Democratic side, every presidential candidate running today who was in the Senate when the motion to authorize the use of force came up -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd -- voted yes.

Outside of government, the case for war was made not just by the neoconservative Weekly Standard, but -- to select almost randomly -- the traditionally conservative National Review, the liberal New Republic and the center-right Economist. Of course, most neoconservatives supported the war, the case for which was also being made by journalists and scholars from every point on the political spectrum -- from the leftist Christopher Hitchens to the liberal Tom Friedman to the centrist Fareed Zakaria to the center-right Michael Kelly to the Tory Andrew Sullivan. And the most influential tome on behalf of war was written not by any conservative, let alone neoconservative, but by Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top Near East official on the National Security Council. The title: ``The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.''

Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up that past. It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works.

Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

An Eloquent Appeal From Iraq

One of the Washington Post's opinion pieces today is written by Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari. He makes a simple request - please don't abandon us. And he tells us clearly what is at stake:

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

. . . So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?

There is no denying the difficulties Iraq faces, and no amount of good news can obscure the demons of terrorism and sectarianism that have risen in my country. But there is too much at stake to risk failure, and everything to gain by helping us protect our hard-won democratic achievements and emerge as a stable, self-sustaining country.

We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by "securing and holding" neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

. . . Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

Read the enitre article here. Perhaps it would be beneficial for him to address Congress. Do you think Pelosi and Murtha would schedule him?

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred's Take on Women's Rights In The Middle East

Fred will make no friends in Ridyah with these statements. But that is certainly not a bad thing.

Sometimes, you read or hear something, and an image forms in your mind that just won't go away. For me, one of those images comes from the 2002 news stories about religious police in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, who beat young girls trying to escape a burning school. Because they weren’t wearing headscarves and black robes, 15 innocent girls were locked in a blazing building to burn while firemen watched helplessly.

Not all Saudis support this sort of extremism, but many Muslim radicals reject the premise that women should have even the most basic rights. These include the right to vote, to work, to drive, to choose one's own husband, to charge a man with abuse or simply to move about without male escort.

. . . Life for women under the Taliban and similar governments ought to inspire anger and indignation in everybody, especially human rights advocates. I'm constantly surprised, however, by the apparent apathy among many who say they care about the rights of women and other minorities.

I doubt, for example, that our television networks have spent as much time exposing the horrors of life for millions of women in pre-liberation Iraq and Afghanistan as they've spent covering Abu Ghraib. For some reason, everyday atrocities such as the endemic beatings, honor killings and forced marriages of women just don’t seem to be newsworthy.

The other side of that coin is that we also rarely hear about dramatic improvements in the lives of women when they come about due to American actions. So let me take a little of your time to give you some good news that might have slipped through the journalistic cracks.

A new study from Johns Hopkins University indicates that, since the Taliban was ousted five years ago, Afghan infant mortality rates have improved dramatically. Every year, more than 40,000 babies live that would have died under Islamofascist tyranny -- and the statistics are still improving. The main reason, according to the study, is improved women's access to medical care.

. . . In Iraq, the health care and educational statistics are even better. There are, of course, still many areas of life that need to improve in both countries, but we're moving in the right direction. The next time I'm reminded of the suffering women endure in too many radicalized Muslim cultures, or apathy toward their plight back here at home, I'm going to conjure up the image of 40 or 50 thousand Muslim mothers smiling into the faces of healthy babies. You might try the same -- and remember, while you’re doing it, that these babies would not be alive today if it were not for the U.S. and coalition soldiers

Read the entire article here. Fred Thompson will be making a speech tonight that will be broadcast on C-Span. Check your local listings. e-Run, Fred, e-Run.

Read More...

Summary only...

Will Any Of Our Leaders Respond To Clueless Jack Murtha?

Congressman Jack Murtha is a walking outrage. Murtha, the unindicted co-conspirator in Abscam who suggested that our soldiers can support Iraq if they redeploy to Okinawa, 5.000 miles away, goes over the top on Hardball with Chris Matthews. His main points, al Qaeda is not involved in Iraq, General Petraeus is lying to the American public, and General Petraues came back to Washington not to brief Congress, but rather purely for political propoganda. Here is the video:



I generally try my best to refrain from profanity, but Murtha is a worthless son of a bitch. How is Murtha possibly claiming that the war in Iraq is unrelated to the al Qaeda threat?

General Petraeus held a press conference last week - in between his closed door briefings to Congress. During that press conference, General Petraeus said flatly "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq." You can find both a video and a transcript of the conference here. At the press conference, the very first question General Petraeus was asked was about this statement:

Q: You say that Iraq is now the central focus of al Qaeda's worldwide effort. Are you saying that al Qaeda in Iraq is now the sort of principal enemy of the U.S. forces stationed there? Before it was Shi'a groups. And do you see that al Qaeda in Iraq -- do you see any evidence that it is linked internationally to bin Laden? How many foreign fighters are actually there?

GEN. PETRAEUS: First of all, we do definitely see links to the greater al Qaeda network. I think you know that we have at various times intercepted messages to and from. There is no question but that there is a network that supports the movement of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq.

. . . It is clearly the element in Iraq that conducts the sensational attacks, these attacks that, as I mentioned, cause not just horrific physical damage -- and which, by the way, have been increasingly indiscriminate. Secretary Gates noted the other day that al Qaeda has declared war on all Iraqis, and I think that that is an accurate statement. They have killed and wounded and maimed countless Iraqi civilians in addition to, certainly, coalition and Iraqi security forces, and they have done that, again, without regard to ethnosectarian identity.

That significance of al Qaeda in the conduct of the sensational attacks, the huge car bomb attacks against which we have been hardening markets, hardening neighborhoods, trying to limit movement and so forth -- those attacks, again, are of extraordinary significance because they can literally drown out anything else that might be happening.

. . . So this is a -- you know, it is a very significant enemy. I think it is probably public enemy number one. It is the enemy whose actions sparked the enormous increase in sectarian violence that did so much damage to Iraq in 2006, the bombing of the Al Askari mosque in Samarra, the gold-domed mosque there, the third holiest Shi'a shrine. And it is the organization that continues to try to reignite not just sectarian violence but ethnic violence, as well, . . .

Clearly either Murtha or Petraeus is lying to America. Let's go to a third source. What about this letter from Ayman al Zawahiri, the second in command of al Qaeda, to Zarqawi, then the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, intercepted in July, 2005, in which al Zawahiri laid out al Qaeda's plans for Iraq:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power. . . .

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity. . . .

D-If we look at the two short-term goals, which are removing the Americans and establishing an Islamic amirate in Iraq, or a caliphate if possible, then, we will see that the strongest weapon which the mujahedeen enjoy - after the help and granting of success by God - is popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq, and the surrounding Muslim countries.

Does that sound like there might be a relationship between the terrorism of bin Laden and Zawahiri that we seek to fight and the war in Iraq today? You can find the entire text of that letter here. Or see here, discussing at length Al Qaeda's operations in Iraq, including messages from bin Laden, within the context of al Qaeda's fight against their former hosts, the Sunnis in Anbar Province.

For yet more evidence of linkage, consider this, a military press release just days ago on April 27, indicating that a confidant of bin Laden was sent to take over al Qaeda operations in Iraq (emphasis added):

The Defense Department announced today that it has taken a senior al Qaeda operative into custody at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

. . . At the time of his detention, Abd al-Hadi was one of al Qaeda’s highest-ranking and most experienced senior operatives, Whitman said. Abd al-Hadi was one of al Qaeda’s key paramilitary commanders in Afghanistan from the late 1990s, and from 2002 to 2004, was in charge of cross-border attacks in Afghanistan . . .

. . . Before Sept. 11, 2001, Abd al-Hadi was a member of al Qaeda’s ruling Shura council, a now-defunct advisory board to Osama bin Laden, as well as the group’s military committee.

Abd al-Hadi associated with leaders of other extremist groups allied with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the Taliban, according to Defense Department information. Abd al-Hadi interacted was known and trusted by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, and met with al Qaeda members in Iran.

At the time of his capture, Abd al-Hadi was trying to return to Iraq to manage al Qaeda’s affairs and possibly focus on operations outside Iraq against Western targets, Whitman said.

Bottom line, unless every available open source, including Zawahiri and General Petraeus, are false, then Murtha is lying through his teeth to America. I kind of think the latter.

Two, the claims that General Petraeus being brought back to brief Congress before the vote on Iraq funding was purely political and that he did not brief Congress are both outrageous lies. Congress refused to be briefed by Petraeus in March, before the initial vote on the Iraq War bill. When General Petraeus was brought back to brief Congress before the final vote on the bill, Pelosi at first refused to set up a closed door briefing, and then, ultimately, neither she nor Jack Murtha attended the briefing. Murtha and his Democratic cohorts are spewing insanity. Their plan is surrender first, deal with the incalculable costs associated with surrendering after the 2008 election.

As to attacking the veracity of General Petraeus, they are laying the groundwork to claim come September that any reports of success in the ongoing counter-insurgency operations in Iraq are untrue because Petraeus cannot be believed. Murtha is not the first Democrat to take this tack. Both Harry Reid and Carl Levin before him have also repeated that meme. They are completely invested in insuring that America does not succeed in Iraq, and will let no inconvenient facts get in the way of their partisan arguments. Thus the utterly outrageous attacks on the veracity of the very person they voted for to lead our troops in combat in Iraq. If General Petraues cannot be trusted to tell us the truth, how can he be trusted to command an entire Army in combat?

Someone on the side of reason and reality needs to respond and to respond forcefully to Murtha and each and every one of his outrageous claims. Al Qaeda grew strong in the 1990's on the strength of their claim to having defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. And they grew confident enough to attack America inside America. What will retreat from Iraq do for al Qaeda? I have yet to hear any of the Democrats answer that question, save for the former Democrat, Joe Lieberman. Retreat from Iraq is an invitation to carnage on a grand scale - in Iraq, in the greater Middle East and in America.

You might want to send the above video to your Congressman and Senators as well as the RNC, asking them if they will respond to Murtha - and ask them to take the gloves off when they do. We cannot allow things of this nature to go effectively unanswered or the price we will pay in blood and gold will be incalculable.

And here are some parting thoughts from al Zawahiri:

Read More...

Summary only...

The Fog of Virgins & The White Flag of Surrender

U.S. and Iraqi soldiers in the surge are daily sending many al Qaeda men to pick up their 72 virgins in the sky, but figuring out precisely which ones have been sent to cash in on that unique jihadist orgy on any particular day is sometimes difficult. The claim that al Masri, purported leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by the Anbar Awakening Council is still unconfirmed and has been denied by al Qaeda.

We do have confirmation of the death today of a major al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Muharib Abdul Latif al-Jubouri, who, along with 15 others, was killed by U.S. and Iraqi forces in operations that also saw the capture of 95 of their radicalized brethern. Al Jubouri was al Qaeda in Iraq's senior minister of information "responsible for crafting propaganda efforts and coordinating the flow of money and foreign fighters." Killing him is "significant blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq." He was also involved in several high profile kidnappings, including the kidnapping of Jill Carrol, the writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

While getting al-Jubori is a major event in itself, I am also struck by the fact that the capture to kill ratio for these al Qaeda men is getting high of late. In consideration of this operation, and the ones cited in the post here, the capture to kill ratio over the last two weeks seems to be running in the neighborhood of 15 to 1. Its not clear how much one can safely read into that, but generally in war, the higher the capture to kill ratio, the lesser the morale of the enemy. Let us hope this trend continues.

Update: More of the Fog of Virgins. Omar at Iraq the Model just posted this:

Early afternoon today news came in that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, chief of the so called Islamic State in Iraq has been killed in Ghazaliya district in western Baghdad.
Uncertainty about the identity of the killed senior terrorist was soon in place, while the Iraqi interior ministry insists it was al-Baghdadi, US officials think otherwise, they confirmed that a senior al-Qaeda operative name Muharib Abdul Latif al-Jubouri was killed though.

So were Jubouri and Baghdadi the same person?

Well, some very bad actor has gone to meet Allah. Hopefully in a few days this fog will lift and we will know who it was.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fredicare In The Worker's Carribean Paradise

Fred Thompson, still the un-candidate, writes today on the myth of high quality socialized medicine under El Commandante Fidel. He leads in with his thoughts on that insipid creator (I cannot say catalouger as that would imply an element of veracity) of modern leftist truth, Michael Moore, and his latest jaunt to Cuba for some of that high quality and free communist healthcare.

You might have read the stories about filmmaker Michael Moore taking ailing workers from Ground Zero in Manhattan to Cuba for free medical treatments. According to reports, he filmed the trip for a new movie that bashes America for not having government-provided health care.

Now, I have no expectation that Moore is going to tell the truth about Cuba or health care. I defend his right to do what he does, but Moore's talent for clever falsehoods has been too well documented. Simply calling his movies documentaries rather than works of fiction, I think, may be the biggest fiction of all.

While this PR stunt has obviously been successful -- here I am talking about it -- Moore's a piker compared to Fidel Castro and his regime. Moore just parrots the story they created -- one of the most successful public relations coups in history. This is the story of free, high quality Cuban health care.

The truth is that Cuban medical care has never recovered from Castro's takeover -- when the country’s health care ranked among the world's best. He won the support of the Cuban people by promising to replace Batista’s dictatorship with free elections, and to end corruption. Once in power, though, he made himself dictator and instituted Soviet-style Communism. Cubans not only failed to regain their democratic rights, their economy plunged into centrally planned poverty.

As many as half of Cuba's doctors fled almost immediately -- and defections continue to this day. Castro won't allow observers in to monitor his nation's true state, but defectors tell us that many Cubans live with permanent malnutrition and long waits for even basic medical services. Many treatments we take for granted aren't available at all -- except to the Communist elite or foreigners with dollars.

For them, Castro keeps "show" clinics equipped with the best medicines and technologies available. It was almost certainly one of these that Moore went to, if the stories in the NY Post and The Daily News are true.

Nothing about this story inspires doubt, though. Elements in Hollywood have been infatuated with the Cuban commander for years. It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro. And, regular as rain, they bring up the health care myth when they come home.

What is it that leads people to value theoretically "free" health care, even when it's lousy or nonexistent, over a free society that actually delivers health care? You might have to deal with creditors after you go to the emergency ward in America, but no one is denied medical care here. I guarantee even the poorest Americans are getting far better medical services than many Cubans.

According to Forbes magazine, by the way, Castro is now personally worth approximately $900 million. So when he desperately needed medical treatment recently, he could afford to fly a Spanish surgeon, with equipment, on a chartered jet to Cuba. What does that say about free Cuban health care?

The other thing that irks me about Moore and his cohort in Hollywood is their complete lack of sympathy for fellow artists persecuted for opposing the Castro regime. Pro-democracy activists are routinely threatened and imprisoned, but Castro remains a hero to many here. According to human rights organizations, these prisoners of conscience are often beaten and denied medical treatment, sanitation or even adequate nutrition. . . .

Read the whole article here. e-Run, Fred, e-Run.

Read More...

Summary only...

Handicapping The Iraq War Funding Negotiations .

Today's Washington Post reports on the initial steps by all parties to come to a conclusion on the badly needed funding for the military in Iraq. The Democrats have agreed to drop their more egrigous positions legislating defeat on dates certain during the next year. That said, it seems pretty clear that the Democrats are far from done trying to poison the well.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who but a little more then a week ago called the Iraq war "lost" and the surge "failed," is making an amorphous demand now that any agreement will have to "effect war policy" and "transition" the mission in Iraq. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, still vociferously clinging to an alternate reality in which the war in Iraq is somehow seperate and apart from the larger war against al Qaeda and radical Islam, reiterated her position that she is committed to "ending the war."

Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer is calling for bench marks with significant reductions in aid if the bench marks are missed. Bush has already indicated a willingness to discuss such benchmarks. In all liklihood, negotitations will center over what bench marks to use, how to quantify them, and what will be the adverse consequences for failing to meet them. And there, the Democratic devil will be in the details.

As to the major political benchmarks that both parties have long discussed - the oil law, the de-baathification law, and the federalism issue - the first two are in various legislative stages, and the latter issue of federalism will likely be rendered substantially moot by resolution of the oil law.

In a very significant development, the oil law has been reported out of the cabinet and will be voted on this month. Actually, if it is approved, it will go a long way to answering the federalism question that is also hanging out there. The oil law would collect the oil profits within the central government and require that they be spent or granted to the provinces on a per capita basis. The Kurds, who dream of a seperate Kurdistan state and want to control the oil and the oil wealth in their provinces, are screaming bloody murder at this. But with less then 60 seats in the 275 member Parliament, it seems certain they will be unable to stop it. Further, I would imagine that the pressure on them from the Bush administration to accept this one as is will be enormous.

The de-baathification law has been submitted by Maliki to the cabinet. This law is still on track. Prior reports claimed that the law would be D.O.A. because Grand Ayatollah Sistani criticized it. Those reports were untrue. Hopefully the law will be reported to Parliament before their proposed summer recess, however truncated that may end up being.

The one benchmark no one is talking about is possibly the most important. It is reconstruction and the provision of services - water, sewage, electricity, health care - into each area that is secured by Coalition Forces. Clean running water and 24/7 electricity will likely do more to bring peace and stability to Iraq then any other single thing the government could do. If anything, that should be the lasar focus of Maliki and the U.S. government. How much do you want to bet it does not get mentioned in the negotiations?

All of the other "bench marks" being tossed out by the Democrats now seem likely to be poison pills designed to force defeat by the back door. Specifically, they are bench marks such as "quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias," as suggested by Hoyer.

One, those proposed benchmarks are the whole purpose of the counterinsurgency strategy now being overseen by General Petraeus. Two, both defy anything but the most speculative of quantification. Three, because this is a war and month to month success is not guaranteed -- al Qaeda, Syria and Iran are unwelcome players in this too -- it would make no military sense to use these as benchmarks. To put it in perspective, it would be akin to requiring the Army to retreat from Europe after the D-Day invasion because the Germans launched a significant counter-attack at the Battle of the Bulge.

It is one thing to use as a bench mark whether the Iraqi government is setting up any systemic block in the way of "quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias." At this point, there is nothing to indicate that Maliki is doing that. Regardless, looking to those benchmarks from the stanpoint of systemic blocks would make sense. But I seriously doubt that is what Hoyer has in mind. And any attempt to go beyond that would be a gross intrusion into the decision-making arena of the military commanders on the ground.

It is too early to tell just how far the Democrats will go in trying to insure defeat and retreat. Certainly, the increasingly dominant far left of the party - motivated seemingly in toto by varying combinations of generic anti-war sentiment, hatred of all things Bush, and the partisan politcs of electoral victroy in 08 - will be satisfied with nothing less then the defeat that Harry Reid has already proclaimed. Given that the party leadership is so thoroughly in the far left camp, look for the Democrats to do all they can to prevent the surge from succeeding between now and September, and look for them to try and backdoor provisions in these negotiations likely to produce defeat through very ambiguous standards coupled with signficant penalties.

Read More...

Summary only...

Of Scotch Smarts & Honey Mead

Protein Wisdom has started up a wave of comments at his site when he posted on his favorite reasonably priced Scotch. Go there and read the post and comments. Its one of those topics where, if you start it up as a conversation with four people in a room, you get five different deeply held opinions.

Scotch is definately an acquired taste, but once acquired, for some reason it almost invariably becomes a passion. My father, strictly a social drinker, absolutely loved it, though he did pay the price for that one night. I saw him drunk only once in my life. And it was falling down power puking drunk - an unenviable state of being that was inevitable conclusion to a night of drinking cowbells - a mix of blended scotch and milk -drunk to excess to celebrate a particularly good night of football for Johnny Unitas against the hated Bears. Actually, that was the only time I ever saw him mix his scotch with milk as I think back on it. A lesson learned.

Besides the taste, the other great benefit of Scotch is that it is the one liquor that your kids will not surreptiously make off with during their teen years. I caught my then fifteen year old son and a friend of his with one of my bottles of Scotch in his room one night. I walked in to the sounds of massive coughing, choking and spitting. My son immediately handed me the bottle, profusely apologized for making off with it, and asked if I had any different liquor in the house. I took that as an attempt at humor and, given his pittiable state, only grounded him for a week.

Scotch gets much of its unique flavor from the peat smoked malt. Flavours vary pretty enormously throughout Scotland, but the best Scotches - the single malts - come from Speyside in the Highlands and from the Isle of Islay in the Hebrides. Islay Scotch is in a class by itself. The whole island is nothing but a peat bog, so not only do you get the peat smoked malt flavor, but the water they use is thoroughly imbued with the taste of peat when it comes from the ground. There is nothing so bold as an Islay Single Malt. My favorite of the Isaly's is Bruichladdich. It is pure heaven. There is but one required ritual before imbibing. Ome must turn in the direction of the Isle of Islay and give thanks to God and to his gift to the world, the brewmaster at the Bruichladdich Distillery, before sitting down to a double shot of that one.

The only other thing I drink is Mead. Mead - the drink of choice for Anglo Saxons of old and made famous in Beowulf - it is the oldest of alcoholic beverages. You make it by fermenting honey, and it can come out anywhere from 5% alcohol to 18% alcohol, depending on the amount of honey and the type of yeast. If you make it low strengh - under 9% - you can make it like a beer, with natural carbonation. Any higher and you have to make it like a still wine.

I have been making it for a few years now. When it comes out good, it is just exquisite. Two hints if you ever want to try your hand at fermenting some. Use a liquid mead yeast, not a wine yeast to ferment your brew. The difference in flavor is night and day, with the former being smooth and slightly sweet, and the latter being so dry and sharp you have to down a glass of water after every sip. I won't give you the science behind that because it will put you to sleep. Just trust me. Two, age it, the longer the better, and if you can lay your hands on some, age it in used charred oak barrels from a whiskey distillery. Ferment the honey with some juices, such as black cherry and asian pear, add some vanilla bean, drop it in the oak barrel to age, and drinking that is damn near better then sex.

Almost.

A suprisingly close second.

And on that note, I shall leave with thoughts of a glass of year old sweet mead at sunset.

Read More...

Summary only...

Turkey To Resolve Constitutional Crisis By Holding June Elections

Prime Minister Erdogan has opted to resolve Turkey's contstitutional crisis by calling for new elections to be held June 24. The background to this crisis is here, here and here. The crisis, nominally about legal requirements to elect a President, actually turns on the fundamental issue of what the nature of the Turkish state should be. Should Turkey retain its identity as a wholly secular state, or should secularism be discarded in favor of political Islam? This from Reuters, reporting PM Erdogan's decision to resolve the issue democratically:

. . . The AK Party has proposed bringing forward the parliamentary election to June 24 from November 4. Erdogan is expected to win a second term after five years of strong economic growth since his party came to power in 2002.

The AK Party will also propose that in future the president be elected by popular vote, not by parliament, Erdogan said.

Deniz Baykal, leader of the secularist main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), said it was too late for this parliament, elected in 2002, to overhaul the constitution.

"This is about a fundamental power struggle. Erdogan is saying 'ok, you're using everything in order to stop me, then I am going to the public and I will ask them (what they want)'," said Mehmet Ali Birand, a leading Turkish commentator.

A threat by the army, which regards itself as the guardian of Turkey's secular system, to intervene in the presidential poll, an opposition boycott of the first round vote in parliament and an anti-government rally of up to one million people on Sunday sharply increased tension in Turkey.

The decision to bring forward the election brought relief to financial markets which had suffered their biggest fall in a year over the previous two days on fears of instability.

The European Commission welcomed the planned early election. Italy said recent events in Turkey showed caution was justified over its admittance to the 27-nation European Union.

Turkey, constitutionally secular and its 74 million people predominantly Muslim, began EU membership talks in 2005. . .

Read the entire article here. The AKP Party is clearly quite popular becasue it has very successfully managed a reform of the economy and a period of rapid economic growth during its years in power. That said, this election will almost certainly turn far less on the economy and far more on the issue of retaining a strictly secular government.

(H/T Dinah Lord)

Read More...

Summary only...

Dirty Dianne - Making Duke Cunningham Look Like An Amateur

It seems that the biggest case of corruption coming out of our modern Congress is not Duke Cunningham, nor even Cold Cash Jefferson. It seems Senator Dianne Feinstein may have these guys beat by "orders of magnitude." This from The Hill:

. . . California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) . . . until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or “Milcon”) sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.

If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.

The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.

. . . [T]he director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”

It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism. What they didn’t know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband’s and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.

This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein’s chief of staff so that she could recuse herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.

During this period the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.

Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.

In spite of the blatant appearance of corruption, no major publication has picked up on the story [and] the Senate Ethics Committee has reportedly let her slip by . . .

Read then entire article here. This certainly smells of blatant corruption on a grand scale. Do you think your Senators might like a copy of this story along with a querry about how this has slipped by and a demand to know when the formal ethics charges will commence. If so, you can find the contact information for your Senators here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Deconstructing Dianne: Feinstein Submits B(S)ill To Close Guantanamo

Guantanomo, famed island resort from the stress of jihad, is now under attack from Senator Dianne Feinstein who submitted legislation Monday to close the facility. You can find the bill here.

You have to love these well meaning Dems whose values are utopian and whose beliefs are surreal. Here is Senator Feinstein's press release announcing the bill and explaining why she thinks Gitmo should be closed:

Senator Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is deeply concerned that open-ended detentions and documented reports of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay have tarnished America's reputation and complicated our efforts to fight global terrorism.

"Guantanamo Bay has become a lightning rod for international condemnation," Senator Feinstein said. "This has greatly damaged the nation's credibility around the world. Rather than make the United States safer, the image projected by this facility puts us at greater risk. The time has come to close it down."

"I want to be clear. I am absolutely opposed to releasing any terrorists, Taliban fighters or anyone else held at Guantanamo who is committed to harming the United States.

"At the same time, we must recognize the sustained damage this facility is doing to our international standing. We are better served by closing this facility and transferring the detainees elsewhere."

. . . Guantanamo Bay detainees who are found by the Department of Defense to pose no continuing security threat to the United States or its allies, and who have committed no crime, could be released.

"I believe this legislation works in our national interest in several ways," Senator Feinstein said. "First, it helps to remove a symbol that directly harms our reputation as the world's leader in support for the rule of law. Closing this facility will restore our moral authority, and make our nation more effective in the fight against global terror.

"And conducting trials elsewhere, either in the United States or before internationally recognized tribunals, will give these proceedings a credibility that they would likely not have if they were conducted at Guantanamo Bay."

. . . Throughout much of Guantanamo Bay's operation, the Bush Administration contended that detainees were not subject to protections under the Geneva Conventions, a position likely to make American troops captured on the battlefield face abuse from our enemies. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Administration must honor the Geneva Conventions.

Now let's subject some of those statements to the harsh light of reality:

Open-ended Detentions - Everyone raise your hand if you feel it acceptable to release enemy prisoners while hostilities are ongoing. Even the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't claim otherwise. The fact that the individuals held in Guantanmo chose the path of radical Islam and terrorism is a bad decision on their part. The liklihood that hostilities are not going to end soon is their bad luck.

Detainee Abuse - Guantanamo has a better record then most prisons for treatment of the honored guests. Abuse at Guantanamo is the same is at any prison in as much as you do not tolerate it and you punish it when it comes to your attention. What you do not do is shut down a prison facility over it. This is another PC argument with no basis in reality.

Moral superiority and America's tarnished reputation - What utter bull. Tarnished our reputation with whom? Are we talking about the French? I'll go with Fred Thompson's take on that one: "The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo." Or how about the Brits? Ask them how they feel now, with the Feinsteinesque concern of their leftist elite for their own moral superiority resulting in their having al Qaeda terrorists walking about free in Britain, unable to jail them and unable to deport them without running afoul of the EU Human Rights Convention. And just what is EU condemnation worth? These are the people who turned their back on the UK during the Iranian UK-hostage crisis rather then give up a euro in trade with Iran. If you want to talk about a total lack of morality and ethics, you need look no farther then the EU.

The image projected by Gitmo puts us at greater risk - Ms. Feinstein is utterly clueless if she thinks that radical Islamists are either signing up for jihad because of Guanatanamo or that somehow the Islamists will stop attacking us if we close down Gitmo. On the list of Islamist justifications for violence, Gitmo does not even rise to the level of red herring. I strongly suggest she listen to the core Islamist arguments rather then projecting her own beliefs upon them. For but one example, Omar Bakri, the radical cleric who led some of the 7/7 bombers to jihad, justified attacks on America for his young charges because of the Crusades. Yep - the same Crusades that occured centuries before the U.S. came into being. See here.

We are better served by closing this facility and transferring the detainees elsewhere - So what, we put these folks in with our hardened criminals in the federal prison system so they can teach them the joys of jihad? Brilliant suggestion, Dianne.

Because we did not officially treat Gitmo detainees as having Geneva Convention rights, that makes it more likely that ours folks will suffer abuse if captured by the enemy - I do believe that, if Senator Feinstein would simply review any of the tapes of our folks captured by Islamists in Iraq, she will hear the jihadis shouting "Allah Ahkbar" as they saw off the heads, not "Close Guantanamo."





Bottom line - Senator Feinstein is clueless. We are in a war with Islamists who seek our destruction. Let Gitmo be.

Read More...

Summary only...

An Oilshed Event in Iraq

Can't very well call this one a watershed event. Make a big check on the Democratic proposed benchmarks for a Maliki scorecard. The oil law has been voted out of the cabinet and will become law at the end of May:

The Iraqi Prime Minister said that the Iraqi Cabinet accepted a draft law which states how Iraq's oil profits will be shared, it will also outline terms of how foreign oil agencies will be able to operate in the country, Iraq Development Program reported.

Under the terms of the new draft law, the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC) will be independently functional and joined with oil companies around the country.

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister stated that the oil sector's profits will be put in a central account and distributed according to population and that the draft law will be put into action by the end of this month.

Read the article here. This is very big news - though it does not seem to have hit the MSM yet. Only a few days ago, the Washington Post was criticizing the Maliki government, stating that negotiations over the proposed hydrocarbon law were hopelessly deadlocked. What a difference a week makes. My hat is off to PM Maliki, and my respect for him grows each week. This is a huge political step forward for Iraq - and it will be an equally hard blow to Harry Reid and company.

Update: The Kurds don't like this law as it will greatly centralize the government, but with less then 60 seats in a 275 member parliament, they are not going to be able to win on the vote.

Read More...

Summary only...

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

President Bush vetoed the supplemental appropriations bill this evening, afterwards giving a speech explaining why. I have included the entire transcript of the speech below. Bush, in workmanlike fashion, hits all of the major points as to why the legislation needed to be vetoed.

What President Bush does not do is address those major points in the context of the dissembling used by the Democrats to launch incessant attacks on his policies. Please feel free to take issue with me, but I think that unless and until Bush starts directly naming people and taking on their arguments directly, he will simply not overcome the weight of their assertions. There is no need to mount ad hominem attacks or to speak with vitriol. But I think it would make a world of difference if Bush's speech this evening had been a little more along the lines of:

Senator Reid and others have told you that we can withdraw our troops now because General Petraeus said that this war cannot be won militarily. He and everyone else who repeats those words are not being honest with you. They are telling you a very twisted half truth. As General Petraeus indicated in his prior remarks addressing this matter, and as any neutral party with some common sense will tell you, while the ultimate solutions in Iraq are political, there will be no solutions in Iraq unless the military first brings security to the country. Harry Reid is likewise not being honest with you when he tells you that pulling out of the Iraq now will somehow lead to success. Our National Intelligence Estimates and our people in Iraq will tell you just how false that assertion is. It is a near certainy that Iraq will degenirate into a real civil war, with foreign elements of al Qaeda and Iran joining in the fight for control of Iraq. With all due respect for the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Reid's claim that leaving Iraq now will somehow lead to success is nothing short of pure fantasy.

Unfortunately, President Bush will not do that for some reason. Perhaps he does so out of an overly restrictive view of Presidential decorum. It seems much akin to entering the boxing ring with one arm tied. He is not making use of the bully pulpit in a reasonable manner, and he and other republicans who seem equally silent, subdued and/or workmanlike in their responses are doing the nation a great disservice thereby. Compare if you will the impact of what each is trying to communicate in Bush's speech below with this piece from Fred Thompson today. Fred knows how to communicate.

At any rate, the Democrats held the bill til today so that they could present it to President Bush on the fourth anniversary of the Bush;s speech from the carrier USS Lincoln, the "Mission Accomplished" sign appearing in the background. Pelosi claimed the delay was because she needed to read the bill. This woman is whacked. That ranks right up their with her claim - the one she still repeats to justify the bill itself - that the war against terrorism is somehow seperate from the war in Iraq. She refuses to accept that Iraq is al Qaeda's central front over there, despite daily mountains of evidence, including repeated expressions of the same from al Zawahiri. The thing is, she exudes sincerity. She strikes me as such an incredibly political animal that her mind now defaults to accept her partisan political thinking as reality and her transparent partisan ramblings as some acceptable form of truth. Dr. Sanity would have a field day with her on the couch. She is really scary.

The delay in getting the bill to the President was pure political theater. The meme being the President lied four years ago - the mission is still not accomplished. The reality is that the President did not claim "mission accomplished" in his speech that day on the carrier. You can read his excepts of his actual remarks here.
Update: You can also see Dr. Sanity's riposte on this issue here. She finds some deep psychological problems with this bit of political theatre. (H/T Dinah Lord)

Here is the transcript of the President's veto speech. You can also find video and audio here.

Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill.

Tonight I will explain the reasons for this veto -- and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.

In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.

Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda -- the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad -- and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."

Al Qaeda -- al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 -- and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.

We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow -- and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.

The need to act is urgent. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war funding bill, the Armed Forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment. Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better -- and their elected leaders can do better.

Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding -- and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops.

Read More...

Summary only...

Framin' Fred - & See Fred E-Run. E-Run, Fred, E-Run

Apparently, Fred Thompson, the un-candidate, is getting the attention of his would-be opponents. They have sent a whole bunch of people with white collars and shovels to Nashville to mine for dirt. This according to Instapundit:

Nashville law circles were abuzz last week about professional snoops – either private investigators or opposition research political types - combing public records in Metro buildings looking for potential dirt on Thompson. Property records seemed to be at the top of their list.

And this also from Instapundit on Fred's likely unconventional e-strategy for campaigning:

Thompson, his wife and advisers in Washington and Tennessee also are drawing up plans for a new style of campaign that would rely heavily on technology and his celebrity status to avoid some of the slogging through the snow in Iowa and New Hampshire that is normally required of White House hopefuls.

The advisers say Thompson, who plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's "Law & Order," is researching ways to use technology -- including the Web, videoconferences and teleconferences -- to harness the enthusiasm for his candidacy among grass-roots bloggers and activists. The campaign also would rely on large events, such as those that have in part supplanted country-store campaigning for some in the Democratic field.

"Well-known candidates can do things a little differently," explained one adviser. "You show up, you're accessible, but you don't have to go to every county seat several times.

Originally, the idea of a late-start campaign for Thompson looked like something of a lark, but the phantom candidacy is accelerating.

This strategy apparently has the Instapundit's seal of approval. I concur.

Read More...

Summary only...

The New Republic Weighs In With An Exceptional Critique of Iraq Policy.

The following is possibly the most comprehensive, eloquent and accurate criticism of the Democrat positions on the Iraq war that I have seen. This from Larry Kaplan at The New Republic:

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. But, when Nancy Pelosi confessed last year that she felt "sad" about President Bush's claims that Al Qaeda operates in Iraq, she seemed to be disputing what every American soldier in Iraq, every Al Qaeda operative, and anyone who reads a newspaper already knew to be true. (When I questioned him about Pelosi's assertion, a U.S. officer in Ramadi responded, incredulously, that Al Qaeda had just held a parade in his sector.) Perhaps the House speaker was alluding to the discredited claim that Al Qaeda operated in Iraq before the war. Perhaps. But the insinuation that Al Qaeda's depredations in Iraq might be something other than what they appear to be has become a staple of the congressional debate over Iraq. Thus, to buttress his own case for withdrawal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "We have to change course [away from Iraq] and turn our attention back to the war on Al Qaeda and their allies"--the clear message being that neither plays much of a role there.

What is going on here? There are two possibilities: First, Reid and Pelosi could be purposefully minimizing the stakes in Iraq. Or, second, they don't know what they're talking about. My guess is some combination of the two. Political maneuvering certainly contributes to the everyday pollution of Iraq discourse. But a lot of the pollution derives from legislators being functionally illiterate about the war over which Congress now intends to preside. In this, of course, they're hardly alone. The Bush administration's wretched Iraq literacy has been well-chronicled. But, with Congress demanding a louder say in the management of the war, the same knowledge gap that plagued our arrival in Iraq looks like it will be revived just in time for our departure.

. . . You don't need to cherry-pick quotes to prove the point: Nearly every time a senator's mouth opens, something wrong comes out. A typical example came a few weeks ago when Senator Joseph Biden took to the op-ed page of The Washington Post. In response to an equally surreal op-ed by Senator John McCain, Biden wrote,

The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed.

A minor detail perhaps, but "we" never left Tal Afar. In 2006, the First Brigade of the First Armored Division replaced the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, actually boosting the number of Americans in the city. Biden's analysis will also come as news for the 25th Infantry Division, whose soldiers were patrolling the streets of Tal Afar even as the senator claimed otherwise. Not to single Biden out: Who can forget Representative John Murtha's suggestion that it would be a cinch for American forces to "redeploy" from Iraq to nearby Okinawa, 5,000 miles from Baghdad? Or House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes not knowing whether Sunni or Shia populate the ranks of Al Qaeda? U.S. officers in Iraq say that, during their briefings to visiting delegations, they routinely find themselves subjected to examples of congressional oversight along the lines of: Is (the northern city of) Mosul east or west of Baghdad? What's the difference between a brigade and battalion?

. . . Today's wise men don't exactly rise to the level of their predecessors. In place of William Bundy and Walt Rostow, we have Panetta and Vernon Jordan; as the custodian of William Fulbright's legacy, we have Harry Reid. The former hungered for the data and lacuna of war; the latter seem frankly uninterested.

More than that, congressional leaders often seem loath even to hear about events on the ground. During General Petraeus's visit to Washington last week, for example, House Democrats at first denied the Iraq commander an opportunity to brief them, citing "scheduling conflicts." And, when he finally did brief Congress, the evidence of progress that Petraeus was expected to present was dismissed before he even offered it. "He's the commander," Senator Carl Levin reasoned. "We always know that commanders are optimistic about their policies." The joke here, of course, is that Levin and his colleagues were not so long ago denouncing the Bush administration--and rightly so--for the sin of disparaging military expertise. True, civilians have no obligation to heed that expertise. They do, however, have an obligation to be informed or, at a minimum, to listen.

But, then, expertise may be beside the point. Obliviousness, after all, has its uses. It comforts the sensibilities of politicians whose varying levels of awareness allow them to favor certain facts and not others. Obliviousness testifies to the virtue and good intentions of members of Congress who, in truth, couldn't care less what comes next in Iraq. It invites Americans to indulge in the conceit that what happens in Washington obviates the need to think seriously about what happens in Baghdad.

Most of all, illiteracy makes for good politics. There is the conviction, to paraphrase McCain, that winning a war takes precedence over winning an election. But it isn't so clear that this conviction guides a partisan brawl in which the Senate majority leader can gush, "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." In such an environment, the subordination of facts to politics inform matters small and large, from the relatively trivial question of whether U.S. troops still operate in Tal Afar to enormous questions regarding the future of the U.S. enterprise in Iraq.

These big questions, of course, are where literacy matters most--and where you won't find a trace of it. Consider a speech last week by Reid, who neatly summarized the strategic logic behind legislation mandating a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Speaking of "where things stand on the ground in Iraq," Reid insisted that the role of U.S. forces is to train Iraqi security forces, protect U.S. troops, and conduct targeted counterterrorism operations.

This transitions our mission to one that is aligned with U.S. strategic interests, while at the same time reducing our combat footprint. U.S. troops should not be interjecting themselves between warring factions, kicking down doors, trying to sort Shia from Sunni, friend from foe.

There are several problems with this formulation, not the least of which is that, far from being a "new strategy," it mirrors exactly the approach that was tested and found wanting when Donald Rumsfeld was presiding over the war and "reducing our combat footprint" was a raison d'être. Chaos, not stability, was the result.

Still, the idea dovetails neatly with Reid's insistence that it is "the specter of U.S. occupation [that] gives fuel to the insurgency"--and that, absent this specter, the violence will magically subside. But just the reverse has been true. Falluja and Tal Afar in 2004, Ramadi in 2005, Western Baghdad in 2006--these places became charnel houses when U.S. forces pulled back. The suggestion, moreover, that American forces ought to confine themselves to "targeted counter-terror operations" rather than trying to sort "friend from foe" misunderstands the most basic tenets of counterinsurgency, ignores the lessons of the past four years, and purposefully slights the testimony of Petraeus and his fellow experts. Living among the population and sorting "friend from foe" is precisely how the military generates intelligence tips, which, in turn, provide the key to "targeted counter-terror operations." It can't be done from Kuwait, and it can't be done from Okinawa.

Though Reid has no use for the Bush administration's military "surge," he does propose a "surge in diplomacy," in line with the cliché that the war has no military solution. As The Washington Post's David Broder has pointed out, "Instead of reinforcing the important proposition ... that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can succeed." Nor is this the only reason to doubt the reasoning behind Reid's "diplomatic surge." To begin with, even if they were inclined to assist the American cause in Iraq, neither Iran nor Syria have much, if any, sway over Al Qaeda. Moreover, the violence in Iraq has its own, wholly internal logic. In fact, the one brand of diplomacy that truly matters in Iraq--the U.S. Army's tribal diplomacy, which accounts for the recent turn-around in Anbar Province--is precisely the mission that Reid's demand for a skeleton force would shut down.

Where all this leads is clear. Piece together a string of demonstrably false "facts on the ground" from a suitably safe remove, and you're left with a scenario where we can walk away from Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. You don't need to watch terrified Iraqis pleading for American forces to stay put in their neighborhoods. You don't need to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which anticipates that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will end in catastrophe. Why, in the serene conviction that things are the other way around, you don't even need to read at all. Chances are, your congressman doesn't either.

Wow. Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

More Turmoil in Iran's Theocracy

There is more turmoil and political machinations taking place in Iran's theocracy as a plan is afoot to unseat the tough talking but largely ineffectual Ahmedinejad from power.

A grand coalition of anti-government forces is planning a second Iranian revolution via the ballot box to deny President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another term in office and break the grip of what they call the "militia state" on public life and personal freedom.

Encouraged by recent successes in local elections, opposition factions, democracy activists, and pro-reform clerics say they will bring together progressive parties loyal to former president Mohammad Khatami with so-called pragmatic conservatives led by Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani.

The alliance aims to exploit the president's deepening unpopularity, borne of high unemployment, rising inflation and a looming crisis over petrol prices and possible rationing to win control of the Majlis in general elections which are due within 10 months.

Parliament last week voted to curtail Mr Ahmadinejad's term by holding presidential and parliamentary elections simultaneously next year.

Though the move is likely to be vetoed by the hardline Guardian Council, it served notice of mounting disaffection in parliament.

But opposition spokesmen say their broader objective is to bring down the fundamentalist regime by democratic means, transform Iran into a "normal country", and obviate the need for any military or other US and western intervention. Rightwing political and religious forces, divided and dismayed by Mr Ahmadinejad's much-criticised performance, are already mobilising to meet the threat.

The movement amounts to the clearest sign yet within Iran that the country is by no means unified behind a president who has led it into confrontation with the west over the nuclear issue, while presiding over economic decline at home.

"The past two years have been a very bitter time for Iran," said Mohammad Atrianfar, a leading opposition figure with ties to Mr Rafsanjani, the former president now emerging as a likely future kingmaker in Iran.

"Ahmadinejad has done everything upside down - politics, economy, foreign policy - putting all our achievements at risk. He has done a lot of damage at home and abroad."

Mr Atrianfar said that a majority in the Majlis was now critical of the president and would certainly impeach him but for the support he enjoyed from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

According to Ali Alavi of Siyasat-e Ruz newspaper, some 150 political activists, governors-general, former administration officials and dissident MPs drew up a coalition "victory strategy" at a secretive conference last month presided over by Mr Khatami.

The strategy envisaged "aggravation of the differences among the fundamentalists" and "constant criticism of Ahmadinejad" by "presenting a dark image of the country's affairs," Mr Alavi said.

Opposition sources said that a future reformist-pragmatist government would continue to maintain Iran's claim to nuclear energy and other "national rights" but would seek to settle disputes through talks.

Iran wanted a "normal" relationship with the rest of the world based on mutual respect, the opposition sources said.

In an oblique swipe at Mr Ahmadinejad, Mr Rafsanjani told the weekly Friday prayer meeting in Tehran that the nuclear issue should be settled by negotiations "conducted in a rational atmosphere".

Mr Atrianfar said the economy was the battleground on which Iran's political future would be decided.

The president has faced mounting criticism in recent weeks over high unemployment, especially among younger people, rising inflation and escalating housing costs.

Significantly, for a major oil producer, heavily subsidised petrol prices are due to rise next month, hitting poorer people hardest in a country with poor or non-existent public transport.

"They are playing with fire. Nobody wants to take responsibility for this. It's going to blow up in their faces," said Hussein Dirbaz, a resident of Narmak, the Tehran suburb where Mr Ahmadinejad was brought up.

In an unusual intervention, Grand Ayatollah Yusef Sa'anei, one of Iran's most respected Islamic scholars, has attacked Mr Ahmadinejad's government for failing to tackle social ills such as youth unemployment, drug addiction, and gender inequality.

In a rare interview with a western newspaper at his office in the holy city of Qom, Mr Sa'anei said: "The government should be at the service of the people. But it is putting too much pressure on the people.

"It bans newspapers, sends people to jail, segregates boys and the girls at the universities, makes noise about hijab."

A senior government official said the rising tide of criticism directed at Mr Ahmadinejad was unwarranted. "People say we don't care but that's not true. We've created more credit, more jobs.

"It's too soon to say [Ahmadinejad] has failed. It's too soon to say the reformists will win."

Observers claim that a power struggle is inevitable.

"A very big battle is coming. It's unavoidable," a western diplomat said. "There's a widening gulf between the two sides. There are profound divisions about which way Iran should go. It's going to get very rough."

The looming power struggle could decide whether Iran continues on a path of confrontation with the west or comes in from the cold, the diplomat said.

Read the enitre article here. While this highlights the ongoing problems in Iran, even if this plan succeeds, it promises at most be a band-aid on corrupt and hemmoraging economic and political systems that are likely unchangable absent another revolution that sweeps the clerics from power. As it stands now, regardless of how much some may want to reform the government, true power is held by the Supreme Guide and a few other clerics who wield veto power over any reforms and who have direct control over the instruments of power. The good news is that such a revolution is conceivable.

Read More...

Summary only...

Turkey's Electorate To Make A Stark Choice - Islamic or Secular Government

The ongoing saga of whether AKP would succeed in appointing an Islamist to the important post of President took another turn today when Turkey's highest court ruled in favor of the secularists, holding the Turkish Parliament's vote to make Abdullah Gul President void. This lessens the liklihood of a military coup and will probably be resolved by a new election in Turkey that will leave the voters a very stark choice - whether to cling to the strictly secular government format instituted by Ataturk after World War I, or whether to embrace political Islam.

Turkey’s constitutional court today supported an effort to block a candidate for the country’s presidency whose background is in political Islam, pitching the country into early national elections and a referendum on the role of religion in its future.

In a 9 to 2 ruling, the court upheld an appeal by the main secular political party to stop Abdullah Gul, the current foreign minister and a close ally of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, from becoming president, objecting to what it says are his Islamic credentials.

But the ruling, which involved the legality of a parliamentary vote for Mr. Gul that was held last Friday, was more political than legal: The court is part of Turkey’s secular establishment, which is now mounting an assault against Mr. Erdogan and the emerging class of devout Turks that he represents, and its decision did not come as a surprise.

Both Mr. Gul and Mr. Erdogan have their roots in political Islam, and the prospect of a president — the highest secular post in the country — whose background is in political Islam has alarmed some Turks.

. . . The court’s ruling appears to have brought Turkey to a defining moment.

Since Mr. Gul’s emergence as the sole candidate for president, a powerful post chosen by parliamentary vote, the country’s opposition parties and its military have warned that his selection would bring an end to the era of secular modernism that began with the Ataturk revolution in 1923.

Last week, the country’s military, which has ousted four elected governments since 1960, issued a stern warning, hinting that it might act against the government if it strayed too far from secularism.

. . . Before today’s court decision, Mr. Gul had faced another round of parliamentary voting this week in order to be confirmed as president. Mr. Erdogan may now propose another candidate or, more likely, call a general election.
In a speech to the nation on Monday night, he avoided directly mentioning the political troubles, instead appealing for Turks to come together. “Turkey needs this togetherness, this unity, this love that has been freed of prejudices,” he said.

Read the entire article here. This will be a watershed moment with perhaps permanent ramifications. As any woman in Tehran with too many strands of hair showing will tell you, once your government goes Islamic, its hard to ever go back.

Read More...

Summary only...

Watching a Really Good Sunni Curveball

In baseball, when a hitter has a really good night at the plate, it is common for him to describe it later by saying something like that the 85 mph curve ball he was slapping silly all night looked like a grapefruit tossed at half that speed. He could see the spin and the threads from the moment it left the pitcher's hand.

It kind of feels that way watching the Sunni legislators today, making noises and manipulating the situation to try and get concessions from the Iraqi government. It's quite impressive, actually:

The largest bloc of Sunni Arabs in the Iraqi Parliament threatened to withdraw its ministers from the Shiite-dominated cabinet on Monday in frustration over the government’s failure to deal with Sunni concerns.

President Bush stepped in to forestall the move, calling one of Iraq’s two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, and inviting him to Washington, according to a statement issued by Mr. Hashimi’s office and the White House.

The bloc, known as the Iraqi Consensus Front and made up of three Sunni Arab parties, “has lost hope in rectifying the situation despite all of its sincere and serious efforts to do so,” the statement said.

If the Sunni group followed through on its threat, it would further weaken a government already damaged by the pullout two weeks ago of six cabinet ministers aligned with the renegade Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr and further erode American efforts to promote reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites.

. . . In his phone call with President Bush, Mr. Hashimi “talked frankly about the faltering political process,” the statement from his office said.

The White House, in a statement from the National Security Council, added that the two leaders “focused on the importance of additional steps in the reconciliation process and the need for all Iraqi parties to come together to overcome common challenges they face.”

Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush invited Mr. Hashimi to the White House for what would be their second meeting there as part of a continuing dialogue with Iraq’s highest-ranking Sunni official.

If the Sunni bloc pulled its five ministers from the cabinet, it would be a stark reflection of the difficulty Mr. Maliki’s government has had in mustering support from a broad spectrum of Iraqis. The Shiite ministers who walked out two weeks ago have yet to be replaced.

Such a move would also undo some of the work of Zalmay Khalilzad, the former United States ambassador, who spent much of his tenure here persuading Sunnis to participate in the government.

Neither Mr. Sadr’s bloc nor Mr. Hashimi’s has threatened to pull out of Parliament, so technically the government would remain standing, but further cabinet resignations would seriously undermine efforts to move forward on legislation needed to ensure that Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds all feel they have a stake in the government.

Members of the Sunni bloc said that they had not yet decided to pull out their ministers but that they were divided between those who wanted to pull out immediately and those who worried that pulling out would diminish the bloc’s influence on government policy even further.

“The first group is enraged by what is going on and is pushing for withdrawal, saying that there is no use in staying in the government,” said Nasir al-Ani, one of the bloc’s 44 representatives in the 275-member Parliament. “The second group takes a rational approach and is not in favor of withdrawing, but prefers to try to work within the government to deal with the problems.”

The crisis was set off by what Sunnis describe as a continued lack of services to Sunni areas of Baghdad. For months, those areas have been deprived of adequate food rations and hospital supplies.

But the latest problem takes place against a backdrop of broader, longstanding Sunni concerns. Sunni leaders say the government has failed to move forward on an array of issues including legislation to ensure a fair distribution of oil revenue, bringing Sunnis into all levels of government and weeding out Shiite militias within government security forces.

. . . “The problem is not just with the sectarian practices, but with the government’s ineffectiveness,” said Mr. Ani, who emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not for the bloc.

“We see a lot of problems in Karkh on the western side of Baghdad, where the government is invisible,” he said. “People are suffering and the government cannot solve the problems.”

A cabinet minister who is not from the Sunni bloc said that Mr. Maliki had failed to make an effort to get the government to work. “He said he was going to appoint new ministers; he needs to do that,” said the minister, who asked not to be identified because of the delicacy of the situation. “What is he waiting for?”

Read the entire article here. The Sunnis are displaying some very sophisticated political acumen. on this one. Their rattling the cage does not occur in a vacum. The Sunnis know exactly what is transpiring in America, they know the intense pressure the U.S. is putting on the Iraqi legislators at the moment, and they just upped the anti with an incredibly well crafted bluff that the Bush administration cannot possibly call.

The Sunnis are in bad shape politically because they largely ignored the political process in 2005. Consequently, their numbers in parliament do not reflect their percentage of the population. As General Barry McAffery said after his last visit to Iraq:

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.

That support for the government has changed drastically for the better in a matter of just a few months. With a majority of Sunnis now in active support of the government and investing in the political process, what better time for the Sunni legislators to push hard for what they want in government, holding out the spectre that this sudden turn towards a united Iraq under the current political system may not hold.

This threat to take their ministers out appears to be pure bluff. The Sunnis are trying to get into the government, not out of it. They would do nothing to weaken their position at the moment. They are just trying to get Bush to lean harder on the Iraqi government to get concessions.

Maliki, to his credit, appears to be doing all that he can to lead his country through this morras for the benefit of all Iraqis. He gets the blame for all ills because he is the PM. He does not have a majority in parliament, and thirty members of his support comes from the Sadr block, who he has turned on. The only reason they are still in the government is because that is really the last vestige of power that Sadr seems to have now in Iraqi government.

Maliki has gotten legislation to the cabinet on some of the major issues - oil, debaathification - and he is trying his best to put out fires in all directions. But Maliki alone cannot address the Sunni concerns. A fractuous Parliament has to ultimately do so. And what better way in the current climate to try to make sure they do then to enlist the full power of the Bush administration on your side.

The only problem with all of this is that it will be played up in the American press as a great weakening of the Maliki government and yet another portent of the failure of the surge. It's not. It's good, hardball politics.

We all hope that Iraq is given the time and security for democracy to take hold. If this sophistacated political maneuvering by the Sunnis is any indication, it will be a very robust democracy indeed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Another Al Qaeda Leader Meeting Allah

Update: Fox News is reporting Al Masri was killed by Sunni members of the Anbar Awakening Council allied with the government, along with 4 foreigners and 3 Iraqis. The body has been transferred to U.S. control for identification.

There are as of yet unconfirmed reports that Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, has assumed room temperature:

The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq was killed on Tuesday in a fight between insurgents north of Baghdad, the Interior Ministry spokesman said, but the U.S. military said it could not confirm the report.

There has been growing friction between Sunni Islamist al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab insurgent groups over al Qaeda's indiscriminate killing of civilians and its imposition of an austere brand of Islam in the areas where it holds sway.

If true, the death of Abu Ayyub al-Masri would signal a deepening split at a time when the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is trying to woo some insurgent groups into the political process.

If true, this would be good news indeed. Read the entire article here.

(H/T Dinah Lord)

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Unleashed

Somebody forgot to tell Fred Thompson about tact. How incredibly refreshing it is to encounter unvarnished honesty and common sense in a Presidential contender. This is doubly true after listening to the Democrats last week each tell how they would restore America by "repairing our image" with the world at large - blithely ignoring the nature and antithetical goals of many of those nations that make up that world:

It bothers Americans when we're told how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. For some of us, at least, it gets our back up -- and our natural tendency is to tell the French, for example, that we'd rather not hear from them until the day when they need us to bail them out again.

But we cool off. We're big boys and girls, after all, and we don't really bruise that easily. We're also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there's a World War going on out there and they need to pick a side -- the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.

In the meantime, let's be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.

Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet.

Read the whole article here. Fred is hitting all the right notes. Ain't it pretty.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Washington Post Travesty

Wholly one sided on the facts and positing highly dubious opinion, the lead "news" article in today's Washington Post is blatant propoganda in support of those who desire a retreat from Iraq. At the end of this post are e-mail addresses and phone numbers. The Washington Post and our elected representatives need to hear about this. They need to hear us screaming bloody murder.

Today's lead article in the Washington Post is "April Toll Is Highest Of '07 for U.S. Troops" by Sudarsan Raghavan and Karin Brulliard. The first part of the article is nothing more then a gruesome itemization of U.S. and Iraqi casualties. Absent from the article or any related stories is a mention of even a single positive accomplishment by coalition forces during the month of April. It is not balanced news from Iraq; rather, it is a macabre requiem. The second part of the article, wholly unrelated to article's thesis, is a message that Iraq is emeshed in a civil war and our soldiers are dying needlessly. And wait until you see just how disingenuous the Washington Post is in providing us with that opinion.

The article begins with:

The deaths of more than 100 American troops in April made it the deadliest month so far this year for U.S. forces in Iraq, underscoring the growing exposure of Americans as thousands of reinforcements arrive for an 11-week-old offensive to tame sectarian violence.

More than 60 Iraqis also were killed or found dead across Iraq on Monday. . . .

Attacks killed a total of nine U.S. troops over the weekend, including five whose deaths were announced Monday. . . .

Under the new counterinsurgency plan, many U.S. forces have left large, more secure bases to live in small combat outposts and to patrol hostile neighborhoods where the risk of insurgents targeting them has multiplied.

Highlighting the vulnerability of American forces, a series of explosions Monday night rocked Baghdad's Green Zone, . . .

. . . Local Iraqi television stations reported 10 explosions inside the zone. There were no immediate reports of casualties, Garver said.

In eastern Baghdad on Sunday, a roadside bomb killed three U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter who were on patrol, . . .

Before the deaths announced Monday, 99 U.S. soldiers had been killed during April, according to iCasualties.org, . . .

With 11 combat deaths, April also was the deadliest month for British troops in Iraq since the beginning of the war, . . .

The deaths came as the largest bloc of Sunnis in Iraq's parliament, the Iraqi Accordance Front, threatened to pull out its ministers from the cabinet, saying that it "had lost hope" in having Sunni concerns addressed by the Shiite-led government. . . .

In the province of Diyala, where scores of fighters have fled to escape the Baghdad security offensive, a car bomb exploded near a funeral tent in the town of Khalis, . . .

The strike came four days after a suicide attacker detonated a car packed with bombs at a checkpoint in the town, 50 miles north of Baghdad, killing 10 Iraqi soldiers.

Near the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, a car bomb exploded at a police checkpoint, . . .

In Baghdad, a car bomb exploded in the al-Jihad neighborhood, killing four and wounding another seven, . . .

Meanwhile, police found 13 corpses -- all blindfolded, handcuffed and shot in the head -- in different parts of the capital. . . .

Let's stop here for a moment and review just a few of the other news items coming out of Iraq in the past week. These are the ones that for some reason receive no mention in the Washington Post lead article, nor do they appear in related articles:

April 21 - Operation Commando Dive in the Shubayshen area, just south of Baghdad, led to the detentions of almost 50 detainees and a number of cache finds.

April 22 - U.S. and Iraqi forces raid a Mahmudiyah apartment complex, detaining eight suspected extremists and discovering three caches of Iranian explosives and arms.

April 22 - Coalition Forces in raids near Fallujah killed one terrorist, detained 19 others, and found large amounts of chemicals used to make IEDs, several weapons and bomb-making accessories, including more than 50 pressure plates and a suicide vest.

April 23 - Coalition Forces detained 19 suspected terrorists associated with facilitating foreign fighters, working with al-Qaeda in Iraq and operating a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device network Monday.

April 24 - Iraqi Security Forces and Multi-National Division – Baghdad troops uncovered a weapons cache at the Al Nur Mosque in Baghdad’s Jihadneighborhood April 23 thanks to a tip from local residents.

April 24 - Coalition Forces detained 10 suspected terrorists and uncovered a cache of weapons in several operations in central Iraq Tuesday.

April 24 - Coalition Forces provide supplies and equipment to Iraqi Pediatric Hospital.

April 25 - Coalition Forces detained six supected terrorists in multiple raids targeting senior al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders and a group that provides foreign fighters to the al Qaeda.

April 26 - Coalition Forces killed three terrorists during an operation in Sadr City targeting a network that trains terrorists for operations in Iraq.

April 27 - Iraqi SOF and US advisors captured 7 terrrorists and destroyed two vehicles rigged with explosives.

April 28 - In Tikrit, local citizens in led Iraqi Army, police and Coalition Forces to more than 20 caches and assisted in capturing five suspected terrorists and engagements that left approximately 25 anti-Iraq forces dead. The security forces also discovered and cleared more than 20 IEDs emplaced throughout the neighborhood.

April 28 - Coalition Forces captured 17 suspected terrorists during a series of overnight raids targeting al-Qaeda in Iraq Saturday. Included in the capture was an intelligence officer for al-Qaeda in Iraq and a group responsible for murders, kidnappings, the manufacture of improvised explosive devices.

April 28 - Coalition forces interdicted an al Qaeda attack on a girls school south of Baghdad.

April 29 - Coalition Forces captured 72 suspected terrorists and discovered bomb-making materials during a constellation of overnight raids targeting the al-Qaeda in Iraq network.

April 30 - Iraqi Special Operations Forces have launched a raid aimed at the capture of a key individual linked to alleged death squad activity and attacks against coalition forces in Basrah

April 30 - Coalition forces discovered two improvised explosive devices and a weapons cache southwest of Baghdad today.

The above is just some of the hard news coming out of Iraq over about the last week. Would it be responsible for a news organization to include this information along with the roll call of al Qaeda attacks and U.S. deaths? Or if not with it, then in related articles? It would be not only be responsible, but incumbent, actually. And the utter failure to do so makes this Washington Post hit piece not but propoganda of the worst sort.

Please note that the majority of articles linked above concern raids and fights involving al Qaeda in Iraq and some involving Iranian backed forces. If the majority of our efforts are targeting al Qaeda and Iranian trained and supplied Shia death squads, we are by definition not involving ourselves in a civil war. It would almost appear to the untrained eye that that we are primarilly fighting radical Islamists - the same folks who killed hundreds of Americans before 9-11 in the case of Iran, and who killed thousands of Americans on 9-11, in the case of al Qaeda.

But you will find no such analysis in the Washington Post's lead story. There is no mention of the vast decrease in sectarian violence, nor the primary targets of our most recent combat actions in Iraq. Instead, the Washington Post gives us this gem of ethically challenged reporting:

On Monday, U.S. troops at Camp Victory, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, reflected on April's deadly toll on their comrades.

Sitting at a picnic table outside a recreation center, four soldiers smoked Marlboros under a starry sky. Part of the Headquarters Headquarters Support Company for the 3rd Infantry Division out of Fort Stewart, Ga., they had arrived last month. They were on the base, just "sweeping parking lots and waiting for a sandstorm," as Pfc. Richard Gonzalez, 22, put it.

Still, they said, frequent news of troop deaths made even their mission more frightening.

"It makes me feel depressed to be in Iraq right now," said Gonzalez, who is on his second deployment. "It's a whole lot different than last time."

Now, he said, soldiers at the base must carry weapons. Return addresses on letters from home must be ripped off and burned, so as not to fall into the wrong hands. On his first deployment, eight months passed before his Baghdad base was hit by mortar fire. This time, he said, it seems the Camp Victory intercom announces incoming fire every day.

"There's a whole lot more activity," said Spec. Krystal Fowler, 21, of Hampton, Va. She said it "kind of bothers" her to know other troops are taking hits in the field and she can't help.

Spec. Natisha Jetter, 23, of Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, in the Virgin Islands, agreed.

"Our fellow soldiers are out there dying, and we're here not doing our job," Jetter said.

Gonzalez said the deaths made him realize that "there's a war going on out there."

Fowler sighed. It's a war between Iraqis, she said.

"We are just interfering, and letting our soldiers die." . . .

Can you believe this tripe? This is a reporter in the green zone fishing for a quote from anybody that will put the Iraq war effort in a bad light, and they seek out quite literally the least qualified source imaginable to print. They chose a junior enlisted soldier in a non-combat specialty, one who is assigned to division headquarters who has never set foot one outside of the green zone, to establish that Iraq is in a state civil war and we need to get out. To put this in some perspective, that would be like interviewing an elementary school's janitor to determine what is occurring in a university board meeting across the street. It is absolutely outrageous and so incredibly disingenuous that it is stomach turning.

There is not a thing ethical about this Washington Post lead article. It is so over the top in its defeatism, so selective in its facts and assertions, and so lacking in any balance as to be a far left opinion piece designed to decrease support for the war. A century ago it would have been tagged as yellow journalism. It is most decidedly not the news.

Ladies and gentleman, if you value your national security, then we cannot stand for this kind of ethically challenged reporting from our main stream media. Please, read this whole article here, and then jam the phone lines and the e-mails of the Washington Post to let them know just how you feel. And while your at it, see if you can't get your elected representatives off their sorry asses to respond to the Washington Post also

Authors:
Sudarsan Raghavan and Karin Brulliard

Washington Post:
Newspaper Information: www.washpost.com

Newsroom:

Main Phone: 202.334.6000 / 800.627.1150

Letters to the Editor:
The Washington Post
1150 15 St. NW
Washington, DC 20071

and by e-mail at:
letters@washpost.com

Your Elected Officials:

Senators

Representative

(H/T Mudville Gazette)

Read More...

Summary only...

It's Clear the Problem Is What They Eat

No further comments. See here.

Read More...

Summary only...

There Is No Military Solution To Iraq. But There Will Be No Solution Without the Military

How many times have we heard Democrats, with a straight face, utter the words "even General Petraeus said there is no military solution to Iraq. The solution has to be political." It is always said as a justification for the Democrat's proposed military retreat. What is far worse is to watch them say it without a blistering rebuttal from the conservatives or moderates sitting next to them. It is so patently hypocritical on the part of the left wing Democrats, and so ridiculously incompetent on the part of moderates and conservatives as to be almost breathtaking.

The Weekly Standard plumbs the depths of this hypocrisy in a bit more detail:

. . . [S]ince Democrats insist on repeatedly quoting General Petraeus to justify their effort to pull the rug out from under the war effort, we thought it worthwhile to provide context for the quote that they are repeating ad nauseam:

The Quote You Hear:

There is no military solution" [in Iraq]

Actual Statement by General Petraeus:

"As our military effort surges in the greater Baghdad area and in Al Anbar province, a complementary effort will be carried out on the civilian side in the form of a joint Department of State/Department of Defense initiative to double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq from 10 to 20.

As with the military effort, the focus will be on Baghdad and Al Anbar Province. These PRTs will draw on civilian and military expertise to help the Iraqis build capacity in the provinces and support local initiatives...

We and our Iraqi partners recognize that improving security for the Iraqi people is the first step in rekindling hope. The upward spiral we all want begins with Iraqi and coalition forces working together and locating in the neighborhoods those forces must secure. This concept features Iraqi and coalition soldiers partnering with local police to establish joint security stations...

With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient."

War opponents are engaging in Orwellian tactics in suggesting that Petraeus supports a withdrawal when he suggests that military action is necessary, but not sufficient.

Similarly, a statement by Secretary Gates is being selectively quoted:

The Quote You Hear:

"The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetables probably has had a positive impact..."

Actual Statement by Secretary Gates:

"I think that what I have said is that the debate in Congress, I think, has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. As General Petraeus has said, there's the Baghdad clock and there's the Washington clock.

That said, I've been pretty clear that I think the enactment of specific deadlines would be a bad mistake. But I think the debate itself and I think that the strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact -- at least I hope it has -- in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

Sometimes it's useful to read the full text, rather than a parsed fragment. Those who use these quotes in support of the ongoing effort to end the Iraq mission are grossly misrepresenting Petraeus and Gates. . . .

Read the entire article here. There is no justifiable excuse for ever letting Harry Reid or his ilk repeat any of their mindless mantras without skewering them. Unfortunately, with the exception of Vice President Cheney, Fred Thompson and a few others, Republicans and moderates seem suicidally incapable of responding vociferously with the truth.

H/T: Steve Halter

Read More...

Summary only...

Of Animals, Casualty Counts, Idiocy and Dishonor

Today's Washington Post contains a Reuters story reporting and commenting upon U.S. operations in Diyala province. The story opens with a description of a typical case of animal savagery that bears all the hallmarks of al Qaeda. Mourners had gathered in Diyala to bury a young Shia man killed in the fighting. A bomber wearing a vest laden with explosives joined the throng of mourners, then detonated, killing himself and thirty two others.

The people who commit these atrocities are animals, and we can ill afford to give them any quarter. Their goal is to reignite sectarian violence - to goad the Shia into equally mindless violence in retaliation. It is important to understand that acts like these are not evidence of a civil war. Rather, they are evidence of al Qaeda attempts to reignite the one that they partially succeeded in starting with the bombing of the Mosque of the Golden Dome in Samarra early in 2006.

These facts seem lost on both Democrats and the MSM. Thus we have Harry Reid willing to surrender to al Qaeda over their four bombings in Baghdad last week.

We are now taking the fight to al Qaeda and militant militias, and we are doing so hand in hand with an increasingly united Iraq - Sunni, Shia and Kurd - fighting for their own freedom. Because we are flushing the animals out, we are going to suffer more casualties then we have using the failed strategy of staying in large cantonments. That is an inevitable price to be paid unless one is to surrender to the animals and accept their ascendancy. Thus it is maddening when Reuters states:

Diyala, a religiously mixed area, has been the scene of fierce fighting between U.S. troops and al Qaeda as well as Sunni Arab insurgents. Last month, U.S. commanders sent a force of armored vehicles and 1,000 extra soldiers to the province.

. . . Five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq over the weekend, raising the number of American troops killed this month to over 100 and making April one of the deadliest of the war for U.S. forces.

The toll could increase the pressure on U.S. President George W. Bush, who is fighting a plan by Democrats to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

I will say again, as a former infantry officer and as the son, grandson, and father of soldiers, I am deeply saddened by each casualty we suffer. But there is an infinite divide between honoring our war dead and using their sacrifice as a reason to surrender the fight in Iraq. We understood this bitter truisim in World War Two, when our total dead numbered well over 100 times what we have suffered in Iraq to this point. The foe we face in radical Islam is no less potent a threat to our national security then we faced in World War Two. Thus, while there may be legitimate justifications for leaving Iraq, given that doing so will inevitably be portrayed as a victory of the Islamists and greatly embolden them, I believe strongly otherwise. But in any event, an American casualty count is under no circumstance a legitimate reason for surrender. Using that as a justification, as suggested by Reuters today and by Harry Reid but a few days ago, is despicable and dishonorable.

Read More...

Summary only...

Not So Good News From Iraq

PM Maliki has demonstrated significant commitment to even handedly leading his fledgling democracy since January. Today, the Washington Post charges that an office in Maliki's government is playing partisan politics with Iraqi Army commanders. It is troubling that the Washington Post would suggest, in the absence of any apparent evidence, that Maliki himself may be behind it. But, in any event, this is something that our Ambassador and PM Maliki need to address publicly and immediatley for obvious reasons:

A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

Since March 1, at least 16 army and national police commanders have been fired, detained or pressured to resign; at least nine of them are Sunnis, according to U.S. military documents shown to The Washington Post.

Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals.

"Their only crimes or offenses were they were successful" against the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia, said Brig. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, commanding general of the Iraq Assistance Group, which works with Iraqi security forces. "I'm tired of seeing good Iraqi officers having to look over their shoulders when they're trying to do the right thing."

The issue strikes at a central question about the fledgling government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: whether it can put sectarian differences aside to deliver justice fairly. During earlier security crackdowns in Baghdad, Maliki was criticized for failing to target Shiite militias, in particular the Mahdi Army, which is led by hard-line Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, one of Maliki's political supporters. Before the most recent Baghdad security plan was launched in February, Maliki repeatedly declared he would target militants regardless of their sect.

Iraqi government officials denied that security force commanders have faced political pressure and said that Maliki is committed to targeting all criminals equally.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Maliki, said the first two months of the Baghdad security plan show that Maliki "is not working on any agenda but the national agenda."

"The Baghdad security plan is working on a military and professional basis without any regard for any sect or ethnic group or any political factors," he said.

But some U.S. military officials say politics remains among the greatest hindrances to the development of the Iraqi security forces -- a top priority for Americans in Iraq. Col. Ehrich Rose, chief of the Military Transition Team with the 4th Iraqi Army Division, who has spent several years working with foreign armies, said the Iraqi officer corps is riddled with divergent loyalties to different sects, tribes and political groups.

"The Iraqi army, as far as capability goes, I'd stack them up against just about any Latin American army I've dealt with," he said. "However, the politicization of their officer corps is the worst I've ever seen."

At the national level, some U.S. officials are increasingly concerned about the Office of the Commander in Chief, a behind-the-scenes department that works on military issues for the prime minister.

One adviser in the office, Bassima Luay Hasun al-Jaidri, has enough influence to remove and intimidate senior commanders, and her work has "stifled" many officers who are afraid of angering her, a senior U.S. military official said. U.S. commanders are considering installing a U.S. liaison officer in the department to better understand its influence.

"Her office harasses [Iraqi commanders] if they are nationalistic and fair," said the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity out of concern over publicly criticizing the Iraqi government. "They need to get rid of her and her little group."

A senior Iraqi army official said he plans to seek assistance from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, in limiting the office's interference in the daily duties of the military. "We need his help to stop these noises," the official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

. . . Maj. Gen. Abdulla Mohammed Khamis al-Dafi is a Sunni who commands the 9th Iraqi Army Division, based in Baghdad, and is responsible for eastern Baghdad, home to such predominantly Shiite districts as Sadr City. On April 23, he told U.S. military officials he was determined to resign because of repeated "interference" from the prime minister's staff, according to portions of a report on the situation that was read to The Washington Post.

Maj. Gen. Husayn Jasim Abd al-Awadi is a Shiite who was "assessed as combating militia influences" in his work with the national police, but three Iraqi generals said he would be replaced and all "agreed that Dr. Bassima played a role in the decision to fire" him, according to a separate U.S. military document marked secret.

Another national police battalion commander, Col. Nadir Abd Al-Razaq Abud al-Jaburi, has been "known to pass accurate and actionable intelligence" about the Mahdi Army, the report said, adding that U.S. military officials describe him "as professional, non-sectarian, and focused on gaining support of the populace."

Yet he was detained April 6 under an Interior Ministry warrant for allegedly supporting Sunni insurgents, the document said.

The report also outlines the case of Lt. Col. Ahmad Yousif Ibrahim Kjalil, a Sunni battalion commander in the 6th Iraqi Army Division, based in Baghdad. He was allegedly fired by Jaidri but reinstated with another general's help. "He eventually resigned after at least five attempts on his life and one attempt on his children," the report said.

Col. Ali Fadil Amran Khatab al-Abedi, a Sunni who leads the 2nd Battalion, 5th Brigade of the 6th Iraqi Army Division, was ordered arrested by the prime minister's office on April 17, the report said. Lt. Col. Emad Kahlif Abud al-Mashadani, a Sunni commander with the 1st Iraqi National Police Division, was detained April 15, the report said.

After the massive bombing in Baghdad's Sadriya market this month, Maliki ordered the arrest and investigation of a Shiite army battalion commander responsible for security in the area. A U.S. official said the commander was subsequently released and has fled.

A spokesman for the Interior Ministry, which oversees the national police, said his agency removes only officers who have committed crimes or whose political and sectarian leanings influence their work. An estimated 14,000 Interior Ministry employees have been purged for criminal behavior or ties to insurgents or militias, according to the spokesman, Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf Qanani.

"Any officer whose allegiance to a political party or sect we have proved will be kicked out of the ministry," he said. "Working for a Sunni or Shiite sect, this is not appropriate at the Ministry of Interior. One should work only for Iraq."

That is the right idea. They need to make sure the reality matches up with the rhetoric. Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Surge News: Is Anbar Infectious?

The news coming out of Iraq is continuing to be very good. Omar, at Iraq the Model, reports on three major operations in Baghdad and its environs that were successful in killing or capturing over 200 insurgents in total. Further, there is the ongoing good news in Anbar province with the Sunni tribes joining the "Awakening Council" and driving out al Qaeda in Iraq. Now it seems that same general process may be spreading to Sunnis in Baghdad. As Omar explains:

. . . [S]omething small in size, big in meaning is brewing in Adhamiya. Yesterday I was asked by our friend Bill Roggio (whose reporting I admire and recommend) whether I thought the Sunni in Baghdad would follow the example of the Awakening Council of Anbar. That council is made up of Sunni tribes that have turned against al-Qaeda and are now fighting a fierce war against them side by side with government forces.

I couldn’t answer that question. The difference in social structures between tribal Ramadi and urban Baghdad alters everything. The tribal structure allows for safe communication among the members of the same tribe or clan. They most often live in the same geographic area and tend to consider themselves “cousins”. In Baghdad this doesn’t exist, making it difficult to safely spread the word among many people.

Even so, it seems that the question might have an answer now, and a positive one.

Al-Sabah reported today that “some community leaders in Adhamiya are working on forming a salvation council for their own district they will be calling The Adhamiya Awakening. Sources close to the leaders said they (the leaders) have managed to win the support of some hundred people who agree with the new position. The sources asserted that the goal of the Awakening is to rid Adhamiya of the terrorists.”

Read his post here. History shows that success or defeat in war has much to do with perception, and there is a definite snowball effect that directly correlates with perception. Little things like what is happening in Adhamiya, occuring in the wake of Anbar, could well turn into a snowball. The vast majority of Iraqis who wish neither to live in a Sunni nor a Khomeinist caliphate may well be moved to act likewise when, after three years of increasingly senseless violence, they see many of their fellow citizens throwing in decisively with the government and U.S. forces.

The one thing that will not change quickly are the core dead enders - both those of al Qaeda and those under the pay of Khamenei. The former will be shooting now for ever greater high value suicide bombings to make up for their ever weakening position and to influence American public opinion. As Baghdad becomes an ever harder target, and as Al Qaeda is driven out of Anbar, look for more suicide bombings in Shia and mixed towns that have been peaceful for a long time and where security has become lax. And look for such bombings to spike in August, just before Petraeus is supposed to brief Bush and Congress on progress in Iraq, as al Qaeda seeks to provide Reid with the carnage he needs in order to justify surrender.

As to those in the pay of Khamenei, they seem content with targeting U.S. and British forces. I suspect that they too will have a spike in violence in August, and could possibly target Sunnis.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but, except for the occasional glowing article in the NYT, it appears that Sadr and his Mahdi Army are truly melting away as threats. The main splinter groups are engaging U.S. and Iraqi forces in Diyalah, and as such, their life span is very limited. Given the incredibly low support Sadr received in the April 9 protest march, and given that the U.S. arrested 700 Sadr militants during the surge, I just do not see Sadr reemerging as a threat.

At any rate, the bottom line seems to be that there is every reason to suspect that the surge will ultimately succeed in bringing security to Iraq. And when we look back, we may be able to identify an act so innocuous as the formation of the Adhamiya Awakening as one of the turning points in the war. Let a hundred more such councils spring from grass roots across Iraq, and the death knell will be decisively rung for al Qaeda and the Shia militias. Be afraid, Harry, be very afraid.

A final word on the government of Iraq. As we think about the daunting tasks facing them, and the "benchmarks" that the Democrats would impose upon them, the time frames are more then a bit ridiculous. To put this in perspective, remember that from the time America declared its independence in 1776, it was over a year until the Articles of Confederation were drafted, and another four years before they were ratified. And then it was not until May, 1787 that the convention convened to draft the U.S. Constitution. We are attempting to force a new nation to compress its time frames enormously.

The government of Iraq is a democracy but a year old. If the country can pull together to secure its country, it will also be able to reach decisions on the other issues that it faces in its own time. If the government can get to the point of providing security and acceptable levels of basic services - i.e., electricity, water, sewage, health care, that will be more then enough to coalesce the nation.

The so called "benchmarks" of de-baathification, an oil law, and the federalism issue will work out over time. Trying to force a resolution of those issues now so that a benchmark may be checked off a score card may well prove counterproductive. The federalism issue is of particular concern. Shia Islamists, such as Sadr and SCIR would like to see a loose confederation which would allow for a Shia Islamic state - one very likely to be closely tied to Iran. That is the last thing America would want. Yet the default position of the Kurds and many of the Shia is for precisely that of a loose confederation, and if we force that issue rather then allowing for a natural evolution, we may end up with precisely the result we would least like to see.

Lastly, when people begin to show pride in their surroundings, it bodes very well. Thus, it is very heartening to see scenes such as this in Baghdad, where artists are turning the concrete blast walls into a canvas for beauty:



Look for this in an Iraqi museum in a century or so.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran's Unhappy Labor Movement

All is not happiness in the theocracy of Iran. Apparently, a few of the workers and teachers, obviously not sufficiently moved by the will of Allah as revealed by the Supreme Guide and Ahmedinejad, are expressing their displeasure at working conditions and lack of pay through planned protests. It seems Ahmedinejad is set to crush the protests and, further, is set to reveal new "reforms" to Iran's labor laws that would make our own robber barons of old look like pikers. Amir Taheri explains:

. . . Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears . . . determined to confront his country's increasingly restive labor movement.

The showdown, which began last year, could reach a peak this week with government plans to crush May Day demonstrations by illegal trade unions.

In recent days, thousands of Islamic Revolutionary Guards have taken position around Tehran, ready to intervene if the International Labor Day demonstrations "get out of hand."

The Islamic Republic has always associated May 1 with leftist ideologies that it claims are "brewed by Jews," and tried to promote an alternative "Islamic Labor Day" on May 2.

This year, a number of illegal unions have announced May 1 demonstrations in Tehran and 20 provincial capitals. The new Workers' Organizations and Activists Coordination Council (WOACC), a grouping of over 80 illegal unions claiming a total membership of over a million in 22 cities, is leading the move.

Equally of concern to the authorities is a decision by the illegal Iranian Teachers' Association (ITA) to organize a mass May Day rally in front of the Ministry of Education headquarters in Tehran. This will be the first of a series of weekly demonstration by ITA, with the second set for May 17, in front of the Islamic Consultative Majlis (Parliament) building in Tehran.

Claiming to speak on behalf of Iran's estimated 450,000 teachers, ITA has shown its strength by organizing a series of strikes that shut down thousands of schools across the country since September.

WOACC, the workers/activists coun cil, emerged in the wake of strikes by Tehran transport workers that brought the capital to a standstill last year.

The authorities managed to end that strike with a mixture of mass arrests and wage concessions. But the example set in Tehran spread to other cities and industries.

Since then, the government has had to cope with strikes by textile workers in Sari; gas workers in Bid Boland; oil-refinery workers in Abadan; copper miners in Sarcheshmeh; autoworkers in Tehran, and machine-tool workers in Albroz and Arak.

Work has also stopped on some projects linked to Iran's first (and so far only) nuclear power plant, under construction by a Russian company at Hellieh, on the Persian Gulf, because of action by illegal unions. Last month, strikes halted work on a $1 billion offshore oil project, led by the French energy giant Total, in Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf.

THE rising labor movement started with local grievances linked to wages and working conditions. In recent months, however, it has developed a broader consciousness by highlighting issues that concern most workers.

One issue that has brought the hitherto scattered unions together is their opposition to President Ahmadinejad's proposed new Islamic Labor Code. This is designed to replace the existing code, written with the help of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in the 1960s and amended in 1991.

Ahmadinejad claims that the existing Labor Code is "a Jewish-Crusader" document imposed by the ILO, itself "a tool of the American Great Satan." The text he proposes would cancel virtually all the rights that working people have won throughout the world over centuries of social struggle and political reform.

It abolishes the legal minimum wage in favor of rates fixed through agreement by employers and employees.

It also allows for the generalization of verbal employment contracts, gives employers the right to hire and fire as they please - and makes legal holidays, sick leave and pension schemes conditional to agreements on a case-by-case basis.

It also imposes a ban on independent trade unions. Instead, it proposes the creation of Islamic Guidance Councils to promote "Islamic values and sensibilities" among workers.

In a detailed critique of the proposed text, WOACC shows that the new code violates the Islamic Republic's Constitution and Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as accords that Iran has signed with the ILO over decades.

"The proposed text is a charter for slavery disguised as an Islamic code," a WOACC spokesman in Tehran said over the telephone last week.

That view is shared by some members of the Majlis, who criticize Ahmadinejad's refusal to submit his text to normal parliamentary procedures. Instead, the Ministry of Labor is trying to railroad the draft law through a Majlis committee controlled by pro-Ahmadinejad members.

Ahmadinejad's confrontational style in dealing with the labor movement has also been criticized by some top mullahs within the regime.

Islamic Chief Justice Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi has warned that the government's repressive approach could destabilize the regime. Former President Hashemi-Rafsanjani, a mullah-cum-businessman who heads the powerful Expediency Council, has called for "sensitivity" in dealing with what may be the most serious challenge to regime in years.

WHY is Ahmadinejad determined to defy a grass- root workers' movement by imposing an unpopular law?

Part of the answer may lie in the massive privatization scheme that he plans to unveil this year. According to government sources, this would put 44 state-owned conglomerates on sale at a total price of $18 billion. These businesses employ an estimated 3.5 million people across the country. A majority of likely buyers will be mullahs and their associates, operating through supposedly religious and charitable foundations, along with officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Although potential gold mines, most of the businesses concerned have been losing money for years, because of inefficient management and corruption. They also suffer from the fact that they have had to employ far too many people - often because of nepotism and favor-distribution to benefit powerful figures of the regime.

Under the existing Labor Code, it would be difficult for the new owners to downsize the labor force or close loss-making units. Ahmadinejad's new code would give future owners carte blanche to reorganize the businesses. By unofficial estimates, a million people could lose their jobs under privatization.

"Ahmadinejad is laying the banquet table for a big feast of plunder," said WOACC's spokesman. "The mullahs and Revolutionary Guardsmen who will buy the state-owned businesses, always with money borrowed from state-owned banks, plan to fire as many workers and strip as many assets as possible, taking their loot to Malaysia, Dubai and Austria." . . .

Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

300,000 Turks March Against Islamism

In Turkey, the Parliament elects the President. It is not merely a ceremonial post, as the President can veto legislation. And over the past several years, the secular President Ahmet Necdet Sezer has vetoed several pieces of legislation that threated to introduce Islam into Turkey's secular government and education system. But now, with the President's term expired, the Islamist AKP party, which has a maority in Parliament, voted for Abdullah Gul, an Islamist, as President. Opposition secularists boycotted the vote, and because it is unclear whether the Constitution requires a certain number of legislators to be present for the vote, the matter has now gone to the judiciary for a decision. In any event, neither the military, who last led a coup in 1997, nor much of the Turkish citizenry appear happy to see the strictly secular system of Turkey coming under threat:

At least 300,000 Turks waving the red national flag flooded central Istanbul on Sunday to demand the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey's leaders threatened to destroy the country's modern foundations.

Like the protesters _ who gathered for the second large anti-government demonstration in two weeks _ Turkey's powerful secular military has accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of tolerating radical Islamic circles.

"They want to drag Turkey to the dark ages," said 63-year-old Ahmet Yurdakul, a retired government employee who attended the protest.

. . . Sunday's demonstration . . . came a day after Erdogan's government rejected the military's warning about the disputed presidential election and called it interference that is unacceptable in a democracy.

The ruling party candidate, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, failed to win a first-round victory Friday in a parliamentary presidential vote marked by tensions between secularists and the pro-Islamic government. Most opposition legislators boycotted the vote and challenged its validity in the Constitutional Court.

The military said Friday night that it was gravely concerned and indicated it was willing to become more openly involved in the process _ a statement some interpreted as an ultimatum to the government to rein in officials who promote Islamic initiatives.

Sunday's crowd chanted that the presidential palace was "closed to imams."
Some said Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc was an enemy of the secular system, because he said the next president should be "pious."

In the 1920s, with the Ottoman Empire in ruins, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk imposed Western laws, replaced Arabic script with the Latin alphabet, banned Islamic dress and granted women the right to vote.

The ruling party, however, has supported religious schools and tried to lift the ban on Islamic head scarves in public offices and schools. Secularists are also uncomfortable with the idea of Gul's wife, Hayrunisa, being in the presidential palace because she wears the traditional Muslim head scarf.

"We don't want a covered woman in Ataturk's presidential palace," said Ayse Bari, a 67-year-old housewife. "We want civilized, modern people there."

Read the article here.

Photo by AP

Read More...

Summary only...

Le Battle Royale

The French election will be held on May 6, and the results are anyone's guess at this point as pro-American reformist Nicholas Sarkozy and far left Socialist Segolene Royal both compete for the centrist voters. The Weekly Standard has a good article examining the candidates and handicapping the race:

In March, in a pizza parlor near the Boulevard St-Germain, an American journalist suggested to the sociologist Louis Chauvel, author of a bestselling book about the decline of the French middle class, that French voters often seemed not to know their own best interests. "You will never understand anything about French politics," Chauvel interrupted, "if you try to understand it rationally."

The first round of France's presidential elections, held April 22, proved him right. Out of a dozen candidates, two now move to the second round, slated for May 6. The brash former interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy took 31 percent of the vote. Ségolène Royal, the beautiful common-law wife of the Socialist party chairman, who rose out of her party's second tier to prove herself a politician of uncanny charisma, was just behind him at 26. Going into this election, polls showed 70 percent of French people thought their country was in decline. Forty percent professed to be undecided just days before the election.

Read the article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hospitals Filling As NYT Subscribers Choke On Their Cornflakes

I suspect the mass hospitalization to be reported tommorow, as the NYT runs a front page story today about success in Anbar Province:

Uneasy Alliance Is Taming One Insurgent Bastion

Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

“Many people are challenging the insurgents,” said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.”

Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.

At the same time, American and Iraqi forces have been conducting sweeps of insurgent strongholds, particularly in and around Ramadi, leaving behind a network of police stations and military garrisons, a strategy that is also being used in Baghdad, Iraq’s capital, as part of its new security plan.

Yet for all the indications of a heartening turnaround in Anbar, the situation, as it appeared during more than a week spent with American troops in Ramadi and Falluja in early April, is at best uneasy and fragile.

Municipal services remain a wreck; local governments, while reviving, are still barely functioning; and years of fighting have damaged much of Ramadi.

The insurgency in Anbar — a mix of Islamic militants, former Baathists and recalcitrant tribesmen — still thrives among the province’s overwhelmingly Sunni population, killing American and Iraqi security forces and civilians alike. [This was underscored by three suicide car-bomb attacks in Ramadi on Monday and Tuesday, in which at least 15 people were killed and 47 were wounded, American officials said. Eight American service members — five marines and three soldiers — were killed in two attacks on Thursday and Friday in Anbar, the American military said.]

Furthermore, some American officials readily acknowledge that they have entered an uncertain marriage of convenience with the tribes, some of whom were themselves involved in the insurgency, to one extent or another. American officials are also negotiating with elements of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, a leading insurgent group in Anbar, to join their fight against Al Qaeda.

These sudden changes have raised questions about the ultimate loyalties of the United States’ new allies. “One day they’re laying I.E.D.’s, the next they’re police collecting a pay check,” said Lt. Thomas R. Mackesy, an adviser to an Iraqi Army unit in Juwayba, east of Ramadi, referring to improvised explosive devices.

And it remains unclear whether any of the gains in Anbar will transfer to other troubled areas of Iraq — like Baghdad, Diyala Province, Mosul and Kirkuk, where violence rages and the ethnic and sectarian landscape is far more complicated.

Still, the progress has inspired an optimism in the American command that, among some officials, borders on giddiness. It comes after years of fruitless efforts to drive a wedge between moderate resistance fighters and those, like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who seem beyond compromise.

“There are some people who would say we’ve won the war out here,” said Col. John. A. Koenig, a planning officer for the Marines who oversees governing and economic development issues in Anbar. “I’m cautiously optimistic as we’re going forward.”

A New Calm

For most of the past few years, the Government Center in downtown Ramadi, the seat of the provincial government, was under near-continual siege by insurgents, who reduced it to little more than a bullet-ridden bunker of broken concrete, sandbags and trapped marines. Entering meant sprinting from an armored vehicle to the front door of the building to evade snipers’ bullets.

Now, however, the compound and nearby buildings are being renovated to create offices for the provincial administration, council and governor. Hotels are being built next door for the waves of visitors the government expects once it is back in business.

On the roof of the main building, Capt. Jason Arthaud, commander of Company B, First Battalion, Sixth Marines, said the building had taken no sniper fire since November. “Just hours of peace and quiet,” he deadpanned. “And boredom.”

Violence has fallen swiftly throughout Ramadi and its sprawling rural environs, residents and American and Iraqi officials said. Last summer, the American military recorded as many as 25 violent acts a day in the Ramadi region, ranging from shootings and kidnappings to roadside bombs and suicide attacks. In the past several weeks, the average has dropped to four acts of violence a day, American military officials said.

On a recent morning, American and Iraqi troops, accompanied by several police officers, went on a foot patrol through a market in the Malaab neighborhood of Ramadi. Only a couple of months ago, American and Iraqi forces would enter the area only in armored vehicles. People stopped and stared. The sight of police and military forces in the area, particularly on foot, was still novel.

The new calm is eerie and unsettling, particularly for anyone who knew the city even several months ago.

“The complete change from night to day gives me pause,” said Capt. Brice Cooper, 26, executive officer of Company B, First Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, First Infantry Division, which has been stationed in the city and its outskirts since last summer. “A month and a half ago we were getting shot up. Now we’re doing civil affairs work.”

A Moderate Front

The turnabout began last September, when a federation of tribes in the Ramadi area came together as the Anbar Salvation Council to oppose the fundamentalist militants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Among the council’s founders were members of the Abu Ali Jassem tribe, based in a rural area of northern Ramadi. The tribe’s leader, Sheik Tahir Sabbar Badawie, said in a recent interview that members of his tribe had fought in the insurgency that kept the Americans pinned down on their bases in Anbar for most of the last four years.

“If your country was occupied by Iraq, would you fight?” he asked. “Enough said.”

But while the anti-American sheiks in Anbar and Al Qaeda both opposed the Americans, their goals were different. The sheiks were part of a relatively moderate front that sought to drive the Americans out of Iraq; some were also fighting to restore Sunni Arab power. But Al Qaeda wanted to go even further and impose a fundamentalist Islamic state in Anbar, a plan that many of the sheiks did not share.

Al Qaeda’s fighters began to use killing, intimidation and financial coercion to divide the tribes and win support for their agenda. They killed about 210 people in the Abu Ali Jassem tribe alone and kidnapped others, demanding ransoms as high as $65,000 per person, Sheik Badawie said.

For all the sheiks’ hostility toward the Americans, they realized that they had a bigger enemy, or at least one that needed to be fought first, as a matter of survival.

The council sought financial and military support from the Iraqi and American governments. In return the sheiks volunteered hundreds of tribesmen for duty as police officers and agreed to allow the construction of joint American-Iraqi police and military outposts throughout their tribal territories.

A similar dynamic is playing out elsewhere in Anbar, a desert region the size of New York State that stretches west of Baghdad to the Syrian and Jordanian borders. Tribal cooperation with the American and Iraqi commands has led to expanded police forces in the cities of Husayba, Hit, Rutba, Baghdadi and Falluja, officials say.

With the help of the Anbar sheiks, the military equation immediately became simpler for the Americans in Ramadi. The number of enemies they faced suddenly diminished, American and Iraqi officials said. They were able to move more freely through large areas. With the addition of the tribal recruits, the Americans had enough troops to build and operate garrisons in areas they cleared, many of which had never seen any government security presence before.

And the Americans were now fighting alongside people with a deep knowledge of the local population and terrain, and with a sense of duty, vengeance and righteousness.

“We know this area, we know the best way to talk to the people and get information from them,” said Capt. Hussein Abd Nusaif, a police commander in a neighborhood in western Ramadi, who carries a Kalashnikov with an Al Capone-style “snail drum” magazine. “We are not afraid of Al Qaeda. We will fight them anywhere and anytime.”

Beginning last summer and continuing through March, the American-led joint forces pressed into the city, block by block, and swept the farmlands on its outskirts. In many places the troops met fierce resistance. Scores of American and Iraqi security troops were killed or wounded.

The Ramadi region is essentially a police state now, with some 6,000 American troops, 4,000 Iraqi soldiers and 4,500 Iraqi police officers, including an auxiliary police force of about 2,000, all local tribesmen, known as the Provincial Security Force. The security forces are garrisoned in more than 65 police stations, military bases and joint American-Iraqi combat outposts, up from no more than 10 a year ago. The population of the city is officially about 400,000, though the current number appears to be much lower.

To help control the flow of traffic and forestall attacks, the American military has installed an elaborate system of barricades and checkpoints. In some of the enclaves created by this system, which American commanders frequently call “gated communities,” no vehicles except bicycles and pushcarts are allowed for fear of car bombs.

American commanders see the progress in Anbar as a bellwether for the rest of country. “One of the things I worry about in Baghdad is we won’t have the time to do the same kind of thing,” Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of day-to-day war operations in Iraq, said in an interview here.

Yet the fact that Anbar is almost entirely Sunni and not riven by the same sectarian feuds as other violent places, like Baghdad and Diyala Province, has helped to establish order. Elsewhere, security forces are largely Shiite and are perceived by many Sunnis as part of the problem. In Anbar, however, the new police force reflects the homogeneous face of the province and appears to enjoy the support of the people.

A Growing Police Force

Military commanders say they cannot completely account for the whereabouts of the insurgency. They say they believe that many guerrillas have been killed, while others have gone underground, laid down their arms or migrated to other parts of Anbar, particularly the corridor between Ramadi and Falluja, the town of Karma north of Falluja and the sprawling rural zones around Falluja, including Zaidon and Amariyat al-Falluja on the banks of the Euphrates River. American forces come under attack in these areas every day.

Still other guerrillas, the commanders acknowledge, have joined the police force, sneaking through a vetting procedure that is set up to catch only known suspects. Many insurgents “are fighting for a different side now,” said Brig. Gen. Mark Gurganus, commander of ground forces in Anbar. “I think that’s where the majority have gone.”

But American commanders say they are not particularly worried about infiltrators among the new recruits. Many of the former insurgents now in the police, they say, were probably low-level operatives who were mainly in it for the money and did relatively menial tasks, like planting roadside bombs.

The speed of the buildup has led to other problems. Hiring has outpaced the building of police academies, meaning that many new officers have been deployed with little or no training. Without enough uniforms, many new officers patrol in civilian clothes, some with their heads wrapped in scarves or covered in balaclavas to conceal their identities. They look no different than the insurgents shown in mujahedeen videos.

Commanders seem to regard these issues as a necessary cost of quickly building a police force in a political environment that is, in the words of Colonel Koenig, “sort of like looking through smoke.” The police force, they say, has been the most critical component of the new security plan in Anbar.

Yet, oversight of the police forces by American forces and the central Iraqi government is weak, leaving open the possibility that some local leaders are using newly armed tribal members as their personal death squads to settle old scores.

Several American officers who work with the Iraqi police said a lot of police work was conducted out of their view, particularly at night. “It’s like the Mafia,” one American soldier in Juwayba said.

General Odierno said, “We have to watch them very closely to make sure we’re not forming militias.”

But there is a new sense of commitment by the police, American and Iraqi officials say, in part because they are patrolling their own neighborhoods. Many were motivated to join after they or their communities were attacked by Al Qaeda, and their successes have made them an even greater target of insurgent car bombs and suicide attacks.

Abd Muhammad Khalaf, 28, a policeman in the Jazeera district on Ramadi’s northern edge, is typical. He joined the police after Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia killed two of his brothers, he said. “I will die when God wills it,” he said. “But before I die, I will support my friends and kill some terrorists.”

The Tasks Ahead

Some tribal leaders now working with the Americans say they harbor deep resentment toward the Shiite-led administration of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, accusing it of pursuing a sectarian agenda. Yet they also say they are invested in the democratic process now.

After boycotting the national elections in 2005, many are now planning to participate in the next round of provincial elections, which have yet to be scheduled, as a way to build on the political and military gains they have made in recent months.

“Since I was a little boy, I have seen nothing but warfare — against the Kurds, Iranians, Kuwait, the Americans,” Sheik Badawie said. “We are tired of war. We are going to fight through the ballot box.”

Already, tribal leaders are participating in local councils that have been formed recently throughout the Ramadi area under the guidance of the American military.

Iraqi and American officials say the sheiks’ embrace of representative government reflects the new realities of power in Anbar. “Out here it’s been, ‘Who can defend his people?’ ” said Brig. Gen. John R. Allen, deputy commanding general of coalition forces in Anbar. “After the war it’s, ‘Who was able to reconstruct?’ ”

Indeed, American and Iraqi officials say that to hold on to the security gains and the public’s support, they must provide services to residents in areas they have tamed.

But successful development, they argue, will depend on closing the divide between the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, which has long ignored the province, and the local leadership in Anbar, which has long tried to remain independent from the capital. If that fails, they say, the Iraqi and American governments may have helped to organize and arm a potent enemy.

Read the entire article here. The Reid, Pelosi, Murtha position just became a lot less tenable.

Read More...

Summary only...

And Still More UK - EU Rubbish . . .

I will admit to not following all that closely the UK's ongoing crisis of trash. But then I saw this in the EU Referendum that provides much needed clarity. It would appear that the UK's problems have as their genesis yet one more well intentioned regulation from the EU:

, , , [I]n all the acres of newsprint devoted in recent days to the chaos engulfing our rubbish disposal system, one crucial ingredient has been almost entirely lacking. This is, he tells us, a proper explanation not only of why we have got into this mess but why it is soon going to cost us billions of pounds, including huge fines to Brussels, which alone, on official figures, will soon total more than £1 billion.

And so we get the story:

When in 1999 the EU decided to phase out the landfilling of waste with its Landfill Directive, this was always going to hit the UK much harder than anyone else, because we have traditionally put much more of our rubbish into holes in the ground than other countries. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with that, since it has been used to reclaim large areas of land which might otherwise serve no useful purpose.

Two main instruments were used to enforce this policy. The first was that, under the directive, each country was set targets for reducing landfill, with hefty fines by the EU for anyone failing to meet them. By 2010 these will amount to £150 for every ton of waste by which each local council exceeds its target.

The second instrument, to encourage us to meet our targets, was the landfill tax, which Gordon Brown has just increased over the next two years to £32 a ton, a rise by next year of 33 percent. The Local Government Association has just released figures showing that, over the next four years, this will cost council taxpayers a staggering £3 billion.

Despite this, however, we will still be so far short of our EU target that, by 2013, the National Audit Office estimates that we shall be paying £205 million a year in fines to Brussels. Within ten years those fines (again payable by council taxpayers) will have amounted to well over £1 billion; in addition to the billions of pounds we shall be paying in landfill tax.

Unlike any other country in Europe, in short, we shall be hit by the Landfill Directive by a massive double-whammy. Hence all the ridiculous measures now filling the newspapers which councils are now taking, in a desperate effort to increase "recycling" and reduce our dependence on landfill. In fact, as I reported last month, much of this is based on bureaucratic humbug and statistical juggling. Much of what is shown as being collected for "recycling" is not being recycled at all. It is either being shipped out to the Far East, or is still being quietly put into tips here in Britain, but in such a way that it doesn't show up in the official figures as "landfill".

If the newspapers currently running campaigns on "bin chaos" really want to do something about it, they could begin by explaining just how this disaster has arisen. It does seem rather crazy that we should all be having to pay £3 billion in the next four years, in a vain bid to avoid having to pay a further £1 billion in fines as a free gift to our EU partners - all because our politicians should never have agreed to this dotty system of waste disposal being imposed on Britain in the first place.

Read the whole post here. Ahh, but the many joys of EU membership are many . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

UK - A Leftist Mind At Work . . .

One of the biggest complaints I have heard from my UK friends and acquintances has been about the police - or rather the lack of local policing. Police in the UK are centralized and run by the government. Many local communities suffer from a lack of responsive and efficient police services.

It would seem patently obvious that if you want to make the police responsive to local concerns, you would give the locals the hiring and firing authority through elections. No more appointments from above. The people elect their constables and sherrifs, and the constables and sherrifs are then given full hiring and firing authority over their personnel. Budgeting for them is set at the local level with grants from the central government. The central government can set the minimum standards and ground rules, but all beyond that is between the locals and their elected police officials.

Ah, but that would violate the very first tenet of the multicultural left - that they are superior and the decisions should be left to them. Therefore, when John Reid, Labour's current Home Secretary, looks at how to better increase the accountability of local police to the local populace, the mere mention of local elections does not even pass his lips. Instead, he suggests that the Brits be brave when tackling this issue, and that they start giving out phone numbers directly to the police station:

. . . [L]et's explore how to increase local accountability while decreasing central direction. Ensuring that the police are accountable to the public they serve is essential in retaining confidence in the work they do. We should not be frightened of exploring new ways of doing this. We need to look at what works. Ideas like providing dedicated local phone numbers for the public to contact their neighbourhood policing teams directly, where they know who is responding to their concerns. The best are already doing this and building trust and better relationships with the communities they serve. We need to go further.

This is so ridiculous. Do read the piece John Reid authors in The Telegraph - it is so full of platitudes it absolutely reeks. It is a leftist manifesto of promises that can best be met not by devolving power and responsibility to the unwashed masses, but by following the ideas of those with superior intelligence - i.e., the leftists. God save the Queen. Its going to take divine intervention to turn this ship of state.

Read More...

Summary only...

Most Brits Support EU Disengagement

I cannot understand why Tony Blair is trying to tie Britain ever tighter into the grip of the EU. And, apparently, most Brits agree. This today from the Comment Section of the Telegraph (UK):

. . . A new EU treaty is being drafted by the German presidency. It will almost certainly be a "slimmed-down" version of the 2004 Constitutional Treaty that was rejected by the French and Dutch electorates.

The changes Angela Merkel incorporates will probably be the minimum she considers necessary to pacify the member states that baulked at the original treaty. One of the changes will be the symbolic dropping of the title "Constitution".

Tony Blair, mindful of the British electorate's rising euroscepticism and impatience with the EU's petty regulations and waste, has shamelessly leapt on this redrafting to deny us the previously promised referendum. He has airily declared that the new version will only be a "mini treaty" intended to make the EU "work better" and devoid of any constitutional significance. He is being either disingenuous or dishonest.

Of course, the British people should have the opportunity to express their views on the next EU treaty. But, more fundamentally, they should be given the opportunity to express their views on what Britain's relationship with the EU should be.

Global Vision, our campaign group, recently commissioned ICM to conduct some polls on this key issue. People were given a choice of three options. The first was to stay within the EU and participate in further integration. The second was to have a looser relationship with the EU based on trade and cooperation, whilst opting out of political and economic union. And the third was to withdraw from the EU altogether.

Twenty-seven per cent wanted to stay in, whilst 36 per cent chose the looser relationship option and 29 per cent wished to leave altogether. The residual 8 per cent were in various states of uncertainty. Overall, therefore, two thirds of all respondents wanted radical change - with the "looser relationship" based on free trade the option of choice.

People were also asked if there should be a referendum on the looser relationship option. An overwhelming majority, 69 per cent, said yes.

It is clear from these results that the wish to fundamentally change Britain's relationship with the EU is the majority view. It is not an "extremist" view. Moreover, most people believe there should be a referendum on a looser relationship with the EU. It is time this majority view was given a voice.

We recently set up Global Vision to represent the British people's moderate and sensible views. We don't believe that Britain should turn its back on Europe. But we do believe that it should negotiate a new relationship based on trade and cooperation, while opting out of the EU's political and economic union.

We fully understand why Britain joined the EEC in 1973. Britain was seen as an economic "basket case". Membership of the EEC Customs Union, which included the then dynamic economies of Germany, France and Italy, looked very -attractive.

Since 1973 the world has changed. Britain's economy has outperformed those of the other major European countries in recent years while China and India are now major global economies. Britain, as a major trading nation, must be free and flexible to take every advantage of this changing landscape in order to prosper fully.

Membership of the EU's political and economic union now holds Britain back. The EU's regulations damage business competitiveness, its protectionist policies restrict trade and Britain's increasing net budget contributions could be far better employed domestically by cutting taxes or improving public services.

Britain can have a wonderful future, but it must be freed from the EU's political and regulatory shackles. The British people, of course, already fully understand this.

Amen. Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

UK - Enjoying the Many Benefits of Multiculturalism & EU Membership

It is hard to see the benefit for the UK of its membership in the EU, particularly outside of the economic arena, if even there. One of the great EU accomplishments was its Human Rights Convention that Britain adopted as its own under Tony Blair's administration. Such a utopian and wonderful idea it is. But then, it generates suicidal outcomes such as described below, when EU dictates marry up with well meaning leftists permeating the judiciary who are quite willing to substitute their own utopian judgment for that of the governments - not on the issue of whether there is sufficient cause to justify deporting a terrorist, but rather on whether an agreement with a foreign country negotiated by the UK government can be trusted to uphold the requirements of the EU Convention:

Two Libyan terror suspects will be freed to walk the streets after the Home Office's attempts to deport them were thrown out by senior judges.

Home Secretary John Reid wanted to send the men home using a controversial memorandum of understanding by which Colonel Gaddafi's government promised not to torture or kill them.

The aim was to overcome objections to their removal on human rights grounds.

But the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in London ruled that the Libyan government could not be trusted and blocked the deportation order, despite a mass of evidence of the threat they pose to national security.

The move struck a damaging and embarrassing blow to the Government's entire counter-terrorist strategy and means other Libyan terror suspects detained in the UK may also have to be released.

Tony Blair expressed anger at the decision, saying: "In order to be able to give a strong signal that those people cannot get away with what they want to do, we have to be able to deport people and send them back to their own country."

One of the suspects, identified only as 'DD', set up an extremist Islamic website which praised martyrdom and is related to convicted and dead terrorists.

He was caught with a streetmap on which footpaths underneath the approach flight path to Birmingham International Airport had been highlighted.

The judges concluded that he is a "real and direct threat to the national security of the UK" and a "global jihadist with links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda".

The other man, known as AS, was described as a "senior member" in a terrorist group thought to have planned attacks in Europe, and as "a clear danger to national security".

Despite the threat they pose, the court upheld their appeals against deportation.
Both men are expected to be freed on bail next week - overruling Home Office objections - with strict conditions including 12-hour curfews at their home addresses.

The court's chairman, Mr Justice Ouseraidley, ruled that their human rights could be breached if they were sent home to Libya, even though it was "not a probable risk", and that they could be denied a fair trial.

He said the only monitoring arrangements relied on an organisation run by Colonel Gaddafi's son ensuring that the men were not mistreated.

The suspect known as DD came to Britain three years ago with his Moroccan wife. He claimed asylum and has been in detention since 2005 awaiting deportation on security grounds.

He is related by marriage to the suspected ringleader of the Madrid train bombings which killed 191 in 2004, who is thought to have blown himself up in a by Spanish police.

The man known as AS is accused of supporting a "serious terrorist group" based in Milan. He arrived in Britain in 2002 and claimed asylum. He served a prison sentence for offences relating to forged and stolen travel documents and has since been held under immigration powers.

The Home Office has signed memoranda of understanding with Libya, Jordan and Lebanon - and reached a similar deal with Algeria - in the hope of deporting foreign terror suspects to countries with questionable human rights records where there is not enough evidence to prosecute them in Britain.

Some two dozen suspects are held awaiting removal. But a string of legal appeals has meant that none has been sent home and yesterday's ruling raises grave questions over the entire strategy.

The Home Office said it planned to appeal, although SIAC judges described the chances of success as "scant".

Civil rights campaigners urged ministers to reconsider the whole principle of memoranda of understanding deals with Islamic states. . . .

Read the entire article here. The basis for this legal decision would seem far outside the competency of this judge. The Tories were talking last year about scrapping the EU Human Rights Convention and drafting their own Bill of Rights and a written Constitution. Now seems like it would be a good time for that. While your at it, you may want to enshrine a cannon or two on the concept of judicial deference, and perhaps even competency reviews. Alas, Britain, when will you take your country back?

Read More...

Summary only...

A Thought For Harry & Co From an Iraqi in Baghdad

I posted earlier about the incalculable costs to the U.S. if we follow Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats plan for defeat in Iraq, victory in Congress. This now from Omar of Iraq the Model, blogging from his home in Baghdad. He is terrified about the consequences of the Democratic plan, as he will feel those consequences just shortly before we do:

Instead coming up with ideas to help the US Democrats are trying to stop the effort to stabilize Iraq and rescue the Middle East from a catastrophe.

I am an Iraqi. To me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying. Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the Democrats come and say, ‘Well, it’s not worth it. Time to leave’.

To the Democrats my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for. They shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.

. . . But now, in the last two months, we have had a fresh start; a new strategy with new ideas and tactics. These were reached after studying previous mistakes and were designed to reverse the setbacks we witnessed in the course of this war.

This strategy, although its tools are not yet even fully deployed, is showing promising signs of progress.

. . . We must give this effort the chance it deserves. We should provide all the support necessary. We should heed constructive critique, not the empty rhetoric that the ‘war is lost.’

It is not lost. Quitting is not an option we can afford—not in America and definitely not in Iraq.

I said it before and I say it again; this war must be won. If it is not the world as you in the United States know it today (and as we here in Iraq dream for it to become) will exist only in books of history. The forces of extremism that we confront today are more determined, more resourceful, and more barbaric than the Nazi or the communists of the past. Add to that the weapons they can improvise or acquire through their unholy alliance with rogue regimes, combined with their fluid structure and mobility… well, they can be more deadly than any forces we have faced in the past. Much more.

The political game the Democrats are playing has gone farther than it should have. Before they took over the congress they were complaining that there had been no feasible plan for winning the war. Now that such plan exists and thousands of American soldiers are working hard with the millions of good Iraqis to make it work, they wish to turn their backs on it.

. . . In no time al-Qaeda and all similarly extremist factions will start boasting about how America is fleeing Iraq under the heavy blows of the “Mujahideen” planned by OBL himself.

The Democrats just offered al-Qaeda victory on a silver plate. For free. An imaginary victory for sure, for now, but it can still be used by al-Qaeda to promote their ideology of death and attract more recruits.

“America’s will can be broken, America is not invincible,” they will say in a thousand ways. Is this the kind of message you want to send to the enemy?

Reconsider your position before it’s too late. For us and for yourselves.

Read the entire post here. Omar is eloquent and correct. There is really nothing more I can add to this except to ask, how do we convince the majority of Americans that Harry and company are leading us only towards suicide? I listened to yet another Democrat today argue that "General Petraeus has said that there is no military solution to ths war" and listened to yet another talking head, nominally conservative, fail to skewer her for taking a true statement and turning it on its head to justify retreat. Does it even have to be said that there will not be a political solution without the military. It is so incredibly disheartening. When will Republicans turn this debate to the consequences of leaving Iraq?

Update: Niall Ferguson also weighs in on the costs of surrender in Iraq and the surreal arguments of Democrats to the contrary.

Read More...

Summary only...