A National Disgrace At It Again

Jack Murtha, a walking national disgrace who curiously is allowed to spread patently false allegations in the MSM without challenge from his interviewers nor any moderates or conservative in government, is at it again today. In an interview today by George Stephanopoulos, Murtha layed the blame for the JFK terror plot made public yesterday directly on the five year old Iraq war, despite the fact that the plotters admitted to initially hatching the plot nearly a decade ago. Watcher tells the sordid tale at MNM.

Read More...

Summary only...

Murtha Continues His Offensive Against Our Military In Support of Shared Al Qaeda & Democratic Goals

GODDAMNIT. SOME SENATORS AND CONGESSMEN WITH BALLS NEED TO GET ON THE SIX O'CLOCK NEWS AND IN THE EDITORIAL PAGES AND START ATTACKING THE PURE BULLSHIT COMING FROM THE FAR LEFT AND THIS WORTHLESS SON OF A BITCH, JACK MURTHA. THAT OR WE NEED TO PREPARE FOR WHAT LIES IN THE FUTURE. LEARN ARABIC.

Todays latest far left obscenity from Murtha:

Looking ahead to a post-veto Iraq spending bill, appropriators are looking at either a two-month or five-month bill, and House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said Thursday he thinks one can be passed in two weeks.

The Senate passed the Iraq supplemental Thursday on a 51-46 vote, and President Bush is expected to veto the conference version next week.

“We want to assess it again in two months,” Murtha said. “Two months sounds good, but it’s complicated. There was a time when I had confidence in the military, but these guys have lied to us so much. They’re so intimidated by the White House.”

WHAT THE FUCK? "THE MILITARY HAS LIED TO US SO MUCH . . . ?" THE MILITARY IS LIEING TO AMERICA BECAUSE "THEY ARE SO INTIMIDATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE?"

We have young men and women fighting and dieing overseas today and Murtha says that they are being sacrificed for lies? WHAT AN UTTERLY WORTHLESS SON OF A BITCH. BUT THAT IS THE FAR LEFT MEME NOW. MURTHA IS NOT SAYING SOMETHING THAT HE, REID, AND OTHERS HAVE NOT ALREADY SAID BEFORE WITHOUT A SINGLE CHALLENGE.

Bottom line - we as a nation are fucked. The Democrats are cowardly hypocrites that seek power regardless of the cost to America. Indeed, many on the far left will not be happy until the U.S. is beaten into a position of weakness for the many alleged sins that they see. It is absolutely fucking suicidal and cowardly beyond measure. Yet the middle and right in Congress have proven wholly ineffectual in responding to attack after attack. FDR said that just because you constantly repeat a lie does not make it true. FDR never met the politicians of today - either the far left who repeat lies in soundbite form before every microphone they can find, nor the moderates and conservatives who sit on their asses, responding one time in one hundred to the sound bites, and then not calling the far left to account. There is no emotion. There is no outrage. No, FDR did not meet these people.

Bottom line, your grandchildren will need to learn the Koran. The immediate future we face is being written by Murtha and it is a future of Reid and Pelosi domination of Washington in 08. The future that your grandchildren will face is being written by Saudi and Yemeni suicide bombers in Iraq, by al Zawahiri from a madrasa in Pakistan's NWFP, by Mickey the Fucking Terrorist Mouse in Palestine, by Iranian proxies laying EFP's on Iraqi roads, by Saudi Arabia who is spreading the poison of Wahhabism and radical Islam throughout the world, and by Khamenei who is overseeing the development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal. These are people who cannot possibly match our might. These are people who have given nothing of any value to humanity. But, with help from Murtha and his ilk, it is they that are writing our grandchildren's future. And that is a future being written in Arabic.

We have gone from a nation of FDR, Eisenhower and Patton that fully deserved the mantle of super-power in the post World War II era to a nation of weak, narcissicistic pussies who are enjoying the benefits bought and paid for in blood by men and women far more principled then most of us will ever hope to be. Every male member of my family has served in military for as far back as I can trace my family line. And as a first, my daughter is in the Army Reserves today. And most of us have been infantry soldiers. More then a little of my families blood has been spilt in foreign lands, and there are detached limbs of my family probably still feeding the flowers in France. Until today, until I heard Murtha's assault on our military, I was very proud of that service and believed every bit of the sacrifice warranted. Murtha today is the final straw.

It is clear to me now that, with but a few exceptions, the Republicans in Congress are by and large every bit as weak and narcissicistic as the far left and, if the polls are correct, a significant majority of Americans agree with them. There is just nothing left for our military to defend. No one in Congress is listening on the left or the right. No one is beating their chest and taking on the incessant bullshit of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha. Whom do you think will call Murtha to account for this obscenity today? And is there anyone reading this who believes that General Petraeus was lying to us in his last brief to the nation, or that he will lie to us or twist facts in September? Or is the obscenity of Murtha today simply seeding the ground for the Democrat's counterargument in September?

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE AMERICANS? WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE PEOPLE I AND MY FAMILY HAVE SUPPORTED FOR MORE THEN A CENTURY WITH OUR BLOOD AND SWEAT IN FOREIGN LANDS. WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU?

THE ONLY THING THAT I ASK FROM YOU IS TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST MURTHA AND HIS ILK. GET OFF YOUR OWN GODDAMN DEAD ASS AND START MAKING OUR IDIOT REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS RESPONSIVE. THAT WILL FULFILL YOUR COMMITTMENT TO PROTECTING YOUR COUNTRY FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOU AND YOUR PROGENY.

I have no problem with reasoned arguments about Iraq and what to do there. But there are no such reasoned arguments in Congress. There are weak kneed republicans maintaining silence. There are Murtha, Pelosi and Reid and a host of Democrats now controlled by the far left of their party who are speaking in sound bites stating just the most outrageous and outlandish untruths - for example, "General Petraeus said that no military solution is possible in Iraq, therefore we need to pull our military out." WHAT PURE UTTER FUCKING BULLSHIT. BUT WHERE IS THE RESPONSE. WHY ARE THE PEOPLE WE ELECTED AS LEADERS SITTING WITH THEIR THUMBS UP THEIR ASSES AND LETTING THIS HAPPEN?

WHY ARE NOT THE FIRST WORDS IN RESPONSE FROM SOME REPULICAN SITTING NEXT TO CHUCKIE SHUMER ON RUSSERT "WHAT PURE BULL. YOU ARE DELIBERATELY LIEING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR POLITICAL GAIN. YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A WOTHLESS POLITICAL ANIMAL."

Ladies and gentlemen, just like al Qaeda in Iraq who is getting their asses handed to them by U.S. and locals in Iraq today, we are down to the end game. The only way we can possibly lose to the likes of Islamic militants is if we choose to do so as a nation. That's it. And I fully agree with Bernard Lewis, the one man in a position to understand all the ramifications of such a loss, that the change it will work in the dynamics of radical Islam and the ramifications for America will be deep and long lasting. If that is acceptable to you, so be it. You are a cowardly fucking idiot not worthy of the freedom that others have bought for you in blood, but so be it. If it is not acceptable to you, yet you sit on your ass not doing anything, then you are a part of the problem. This is it folks. Either get energized and start having come to Jesus meetings with your elected representatives or get fucked and enjoy the next few years at the expense of the future and all that our forefathers have worked to produce. Your call.

I apologize for the use of expletives. I try to refrain from them except on the rare occasion when they are warranted. One occasion is today.

Read More...

Summary only...

Murtha & Pelosi Getting Dirtier At The Trough (Update: Add Republicans Too)

More news is coming out that sheds a harsh light on Murtha's antics in the House in regards to the proposed 23 million in pork he wants to keep the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) alive in his district. This is the same earmark over which Murtha threatened Congressman Mike Rogers. See here. And it throws an equally harsh light on the descent of Pelosi's Congress into the muck and mire that she promised to clean up.

The House Intelligence Committee notified all members of a March 23 deadline date for submitting ear mark certification letters proposing additions to the House Intelligence budget request. By House rules, a copy of the certification letter was to be provided both to the Committee Chairman and to the ranking Republican on the Committee, Rep. Pete Hoeksra.

Murtha submitted his earmark certification letter for the NDIC five weeks late on the day prior to Committee hearings on the budget. He failed to provide a copy to the ranking Republican on the Committee. Not surprisingly, these acts of Murtha, coupled with, among other things, Murtha's threats to Rep. Rogers over challenges to this pork barrel project and Pelosi's threat to overturn House rules near two centuries old in order to marginalize the Republican minority, have led the Republicans to call foul. Not only has Pelosi failed to run "the most ethical House in history," as she promised in the 06 campaign, but things have taken a turn for the worse. Earmarks have only become less transparent and accountable, and on top of that, "there is a growing pattern of abuses on the part of Democrats" of the House rules. Its just not getting any print in the MSM.

As to Rep. Rogers and his complaint against threats by Murtha over the NDIC earmark:

[Rogers] introduced a privileged resolution Monday night reprimanding Murtha for the threat, but Democrats postponed a vote on the measure. Democrats have a 48-hour window to decide whether the resolution’s claims are valid, which in turn would allow an hour of debate and a vote. One Democratic source said that a vote could come Tuesday.

Read the entire story here.

Update: While the criticism of Murtha and Pelosi stand, it is also true that Republicans have not given up at the trough either. The Hill is reporting that 8 billion in earmarks have been approved as part of Murtha's Defense Appropriations bill, and that a full 40% of that is going to fund pet pork of Republican legislatiors. Eight billion would fund a lot of boots on the ground in Iraq, alleviating the strain we are putting on our soldiers. It would fund a lot of health care for soldiers missing limbs and suffering brain injuries from concussive force. Not a dime of this 8 billion is being spent appropriately, and beyond that, some of it is clearly being misspent to fund projects that our military does not want:

One of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-Calif.) favorite requests, the Sea-Fighter project (also known as X-Craft), built by L3 Communications Titan Group, made it into the bill. Hunter, the committee’s ranking member, requested $22 million for the project. Last year, Hunter added $25.7 million despite the Navy’s reluctance to spend money on the project, according to a Congress Daily report.

Read the entire sordid story here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrat Politics - Iraq, Murtha on Pork, Pelosi Trys to Silence Republicans, Ethics Rules, - Its a Circus

Lots going under the big top on the left side of the aisle this past week that I haven't had time to blog about - at least not until my recent bout of insomnia.

The lead has to be the political games being run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, sending the Iraq bill to the President, this time only sans the pork and earmarks that had no business in the bill to begin with. You have to love their feigned disappointment when President Bush refused to agree to Democratic terms of surrender in Iraq, whether or not waiverable. See here. My favorite of all the Democratic posturing on this, though, has to be David Obey, House Appropriations Committee Chairman:

The offers that we made today represented very large steps toward compromise on our part . . . And I think we got an inchworm response from the administration.

Sorry, Mr. Obey, but including terms of surrender in the funding bill does not qualify as any reasonable attempt at compromise.

Jack Murtha apparently likes his pork without criticism or challenge. The government moved to close down National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) located in Murtha's district on the grounds that it is not functioning to expectations and it is no longer needed. When Murtha had continued funding for the NDIC put into the budget, Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan sought to have it cut. Murtha went ballistic, accroding to the WP story:

According to Rogers' account, which Murtha did not dispute, the Democrat angrily told Rogers he should never seek earmarks of his own because "you're not going to get any, now or forever."

"This was clearly designed to try to intimidate me," Rogers said in an interview Friday. "He said it loud enough for other people to hear."

House rules prohibit lawmakers from placing conditions on earmarks or targeted tax benefits that are based on another member's votes.

Rogers will submit a motion to censure Murtha before the House on Monday. Nice to see someone standing up to Murtha. It needs to go a lot further, though.

On a different front, there are the lobbying rules that Democrats promised to clean up as a function of their campaign against a "culture of corruption." But it seems now that many Democrats kind of like that culture. This from the NYT:

House Democrats wavered Thursday in their vow to tighten Congressional ethics rules as their leaders scrapped a campaign pledge to double the current one-year ban on lobbying by departing lawmakers and senior staff members.

Democratic leaders in the House faced a rank-and-file revolt over the measure, which would significantly cramp the ability of lawmakers to cash in on their government service for million-dollar paychecks on K Street as soon as they leave office. . .

Then there was the attempt by Nancy Pelosi to change a House Rule in effect since 1822 allowing the party in the minority to submit a Motion to Recommit on bills before the House. You can get a thorough explanation at Fausta's Blog and the links therein. Nancy's talk of bipartisan cooperation was, it would seem, lacking in any substance - she attempted to completely shut off the minority from their 185 year old procedural right to impact on legislation she and her Democratic majority would bring before the House. Fortunately, she failed in this endeavor, at least for now.

And on the "insuring ideological purity" front, Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, was one of several Democrats who voted against the McGovern Bill a few days ago. That bill, would have mandated an immediate withdraw from Iraq. Enjoying the full support of the George Soros propaganda machine MoveOn.org, it was nonetheless defeated by a vote of 255 to 171. Hoyer, it should be noted, at least as recently as December, 2005, admitted to strong differences of opinion on the Iraq War with Nancy Pelosi, saying that if she "had her way it 'could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility.'" See here. I couldn't agree more.

Such ideological variance from the mainstream of Soros-thought is not to be tolerated in the Democratic Party. Thus, it is no surprise that Soros's MoveOn.org is running attack ads against Hoyer in his district for failing to vote "yea" on the McGovern bill. They are also running attack ads against Carl Levin for his suggestion that Democrats would vote to fund the war without requiring surrender on a date certain. See here. It is not nice to disagree with George Soros. Not if you are a Democrat.

And thus ends a week of politics in the Democratic majority. I personally was glad to see the Republicans bounced from the majority on the grounds that they had become wholly unmoored from their conservative, small government roots. What I am not glad to see is the Democratic circus that has replaced them.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bernard Lewis On Radical Islam & The Cost of Quitting Iraq

America's premeir orientalist, Bernard Lewis, has written an article explaining the dangers of being viewed as weak and appeasers by the Islamic world. Most importantly, Professor Lewis discusses how quitting Iraq will have enormous consequences for the United States and the Islamic world:

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"

A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.

These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. . . . Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Washington's handling of the Tehran hostage crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already ruled--or misruled--half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution "strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan." The words "condemn" and "aggression" were not used, and the source of the "intervention" was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.

One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.

The Muslim willingness to submit to Soviet authority, though widespread, was not unanimous. The Afghan people, who had successfully defied the British Empire in its prime, found a way to resist the Soviet invaders. An organization known as the Taliban (literally, "the students") began to organize resistance and even guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupiers and their puppets. For this, they were able to attract some support from the Muslim world--some grants of money, and growing numbers of volunteers to fight in the Holy War against the infidel conqueror. Notable among these was a group led by a Saudi of Yemeni origin called Osama bin Laden.

To accomplish their purpose, they did not disdain to turn to the U.S. for help, which they got. In the Muslim perception there has been, since the time of the Prophet, an ongoing struggle between the two world religions, Christendom and Islam, for the privilege and opportunity to bring salvation to the rest of humankind, removing whatever obstacles there might be in their path. For a long time, the main enemy was seen, with some plausibility, as being the West, and some Muslims were, naturally enough, willing to accept what help they could get against that enemy. This explains the widespread support in the Arab countries and in some other places first for the Third Reich and, after its collapse, for the Soviet Union. These were the main enemies of the West, and therefore natural allies.

Now the situation had changed. The more immediate, more dangerous enemy was the Soviet Union, already ruling a number of Muslim countries, and daily increasing its influence and presence in others. It was therefore natural to seek and accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the pampered and degenerate Americans would be easy.

We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the circumstances, this perception does not lack plausibility.

From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.

Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

Read the entire story here. Reading this makes one cringe when thoughts turn to Harry Reid and Chuckie Shumer openly discussing how they would fan the flames of opposition to continuation of the war in Iraq for the explicit goal of achieving political power in the 2008 elections. Likewise with Jack Murtha going labeling General Petraeus a liar and claiming all he says is politically motivated. It is suicide by cynical manipulation of the electorate. Why can we not get the attention of the nation shifted to the only issue that matters today - whether in fact leaving Iraq will have incalculable costs and "consequences - both for Islam and America?" Why doesn't George Bush have Bernard Lewis stand at his side and give this speech to the nation? For God's sakes, why not?

Read More...

Summary only...

Are Dems Winning the Battle For Surrender?

Robert Tracinski publishes a newsletter available at TIADaily.com to subscribers. I strongly recommend it as he provides a consistently solid analysis of events. His latest is looking at what is now a snowball effect to get us out of Iraq, with unprincipled moderate republicans starting to squirm and Democrats defining what Petraeus must show to establish that the surge is succeeding come September. As I warned here, Democrats are doing all they can to undercut whatever General Petraeus may say, and absent some real leadership from Republicans to recenter the debate or a Lieberman switch to the Republican Party, we probably will withdraw from Iraq commencing in September. This is Tracinski's thorough analysis of the situation, coming to a similar conclusion and asking that we start taking efforts at the grass roots level to get our elected representatives' attention:

Are the Democrats slowly winning the battle for surrender in Iraq?

President Bush recently vetoed the congressional war appropriations bill that would have imposed a timetable for surrender in Iraq by mandating that America begin withdrawing its troops on October 1 of this year. But there are signs that some congressional Republicans may be caving in to a watered-down version of that timeline, setting September 30 as the date on which they will consider joining the Democrats in voting for an American retreat from Iraq.

So the Republicans have succeeded in blocking a bill that would establish a "date certain" for American surrender—but now we face a date uncertain: a date on which Congress may or may not vote for surrender.

The potential break in the will of congressional Republicans is partly overstated by the Democrats as part of their political posturing. A recent Associated Press report, for example, proclaims "Boehner: GOP Support on Iraq Could Waver," yet the story is almost entirely dependent on quotes from boasting Democrats, with only a few quotes from the man to whom the headline attributes Republican wavering: House Majority Leader John Boehner. And the quote from Boehner is taken out of context.

. . . The Los Angeles Times at least gives us that context:

Boehner said he had long backed benchmarks and said they could help the Bush administration assess whether its strategies were working. But he rejected the idea that those benchmarks should be tied to funding.

"I'm for benchmarks that are for success," he said. "I'm not for benchmarks with artificial timelines, yanking funds, trying to ensure that there's failure in Iraq."

Boehner has defined the issue in exactly the right way: the only proper criterion for judging any measure on Iraq is whether it will lead to victory.

. . . But while the top Republican leaders have not broken, there are signs of defection among the habitually appeasing, unprincipled "moderate" Republicans—the type who reflexively swing back toward the left whenever the political influence of the Republican leadership fades. Today's New York Times has a worrying report on a meeting between the "moderates" and President Bush

. . . The most balanced coverage of this story comes from the Washington Post, which reports:

"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."…

"There is a sense that by September, you've got to see real action on the part of Iraqis," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). "I think everybody knows that, I really do."

"I think a lot of us feel that way," agreed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)….

The new House proposal would immediately provide about $43 billion of the $95.5 billion the administration says it needs to keep the war going through Sept. 30. That infusion would come with language establishing benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and it is likely to include tougher standards for resting, training, and equipping troops. Binding timelines for troop withdrawals would be dropped to try to win Republican support and avoid a second veto.

The remaining $52.5 billion in the bill would be contingent on a second vote in late July, after the administration's progress report.

Republicans are still fairly united in opposing the July vote for an extension of war funding—but they are starting to agree to the September 30 deadline.

The Republican leadership seems to regard this as a stalling tactic, an attempt to delay a showdown by three to four months in order to buy time for General Petraeus to show progress in Iraq, in the hope that this will make it easier for quailing Republican moderates to support the war and harder for moderate Democrats to oppose it.

The problem is that the left has largely succeeded in rigging the terms of the debate to make it impossible to demonstrate any American success in Iraq. A few days ago, Jack Wakeland described the problem to me this way:

Congressmen on both sides of the isle agree on tacit deadline of Sept. 30. If General Petraeus and President Bush can't prove they're making progress in establishing a stable republic in Iraq, a large body of Republican congressmen say they'll join democrats in pulling the plug.

But on what terms will "progress" in Iraq have to be proved?

Hasn't the left already set false terms of debate in that area, too—asserting absolute disbelief of any assertions of American success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the criterion of rationality? Leftists in the press have created an ersatz "credibility gap" to derail any discussion of Iran's evil meddling and murder in Iraq and, with their condemnation of John McCain's visit to Baghdad, they've begun to assert that any observation by any American that there are any secure or peaceful areas in Iraq are fraudulent. (They actually got McCain to recant his statement on how secure the area was—even though it was a fact Sen. McCain saw with his own eyes.)

The principle for reporting on the war is now: Any success by the Islamist enemies is a real and lasting achievement. Any success by America or by friendly local forces is either a temporary condition or a fake.

How will legitimate claims of progress by Gen. Petreaus be received? How have claims that his work is good already been received? And how will the legitimate claims of President Bush on the imperative to not abandon Iraq be received?

The left is re-writing the rational rules of the cultural-political playing field so they always come out against America's national defense.

For a preview of what we can expect to see on September 30, consider the reception of an Iraqi official reporting to Congress on the state of the conflict in Iraq. The Iraqi of Minister of Defense has been on a trip to Washington attempting to lobby for further support for his nation. According to the New York Times:

In the session with [Democratic Senator Carl] Levin, Mr. Rubaie stressed that Iraq was involved in a historic process to overcome the long legacy of authoritarian rule, and that the early withdrawal of American troops would lead to chaos.

Mr. Levin, for his part, stuck firmly to his position that the United States should begin a partial troop withdrawal in four months.

The story's headline says it all: "Official Takes Case to US, but Skeptics Don't Budge." Expect many more such headlines on and around September 30, all as a rationalization for Democrats to do what they already want to do—force an American retreat from Iraq—and as cover for the timid Republican "moderates" to go along.

Al-Qaeda number two man Ayman al-Zawahiri is already gloating that "the empire of evil is about to end and a new dawn is about break over mankind, [which will be] liberated from the Caesars of the White House and Europe and from the Zionists." He is also telling Iraqis who have sided with America to "look to their fates and their futures" once America withdraws. It is a not-so-subtle threat that has now become a credible threat, thanks to the Democratic Congress, to the Republican "moderates"—and to a mass of irresponsible "swing voters."

All of this is leaving many supporters of the war in a state of despair. Tony Blankley recently noted the emerging consensus over the September 30 deadline and concluded:

Assuming continuing bad news and bad polling in September, enough Republicans may well support the Democrats' inevitable "out by the spring" military appropriation to allow for a successful override of the president's certain veto. Then the president may try to challenge congressional authority in court (perhaps relying on the 1861 Food and Forage Act, if Congress doesn't exempt their cutoff from that law, which permits an army to stay in the field without appropriated monies).

Perhaps the president will win in court. Perhaps things will be seen to be getting much better in Iraq. Perhaps fewer Republicans will cross the aisle, and will instead stick with their commitment to our national security requirements. Perhaps the Democrats will so grossly demonstrate their unfitness for national leadership that they lose electoral credibility (although their growing electoral strength in the face of their already clearly grotesque irresponsibility makes one wonder what more they could do that might, finally, appall the public). But a betting man wouldn't count on it.

But we're not just spectators sitting back and betting on this contest—not when we have such a direct, personal stake in the outcome. And now we know exactly how grim the situation is, exactly how far the Democrats are willing to go in causing the implosion of America's foreign policy, and exactly how much time we have to make a difference.

Mark your calendar for September 30—and do everything you can, until then, to impress upon your leaders and upon your fellow citizens the disastrous consequences of giving Ayman al-Zawahiri his victory in Iraq.

I have said before and will say again: all of our elected leaders who value national security above partisan politics need to start speaking up and taking a stand against the ridiculous memes that the far left Democrats are using to justify retreat and to set the terms of the debate. I have yet to hear one Republican say word one about Jack Murtha's performance on Hardball where he called General Petraeus a liar, among other patently false assertions. There should have been a chorus of people standing at podiums the next day laying down the gauntlet in no uncertain terms. There should be absolute name-calling outrage. But instead, the silence has been deafening. Somebody has to wake up and start vociferously attacking this lying and idiocy or we will be out of Iraq starting in September. And this country will pay the bill for it for God knows how long - but you can rest assured it will make the "blank check" to finish the war look like pocket change.

(H/T Steve Halter)

Read More...

Summary only...

Absent a Major Change, Surrender Will Occur Commencing In September

The Washington Post reports that Democrat plans are coallescing around the September brief by General Petraeus as being one of two possible triggers for forcing retreat from Iraq. The other trigger seems to be a July date for a briefing on the progress of the war. In either event, the Democrats are being joined by some Republicans who are no longer operating on principal. Instead of focusing the debate on the incalculable costs of retreating from Iraq, they have allowed the far left to set the terms of the debate:

Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner, with September looking increasingly like a decisive deadline.

I disagree with that characterization. I think it is clear that most Republicans are waiting for September to see if General Petraeus is able to report favorable long term trends. The Democrats are ready to declare defeat today, and will only wait until September as a last resort. Given that Jack Murtha, Harry Reid and Carl Levin have already begun a preemptive campaign to paint General Petreus as someone who cannot be believed, do not expect the Democrats, under any scenario - including an improving situation in Iraq - to do anything but to continue to press for defeat.

In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions. And fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough new strings on war funding.

"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."

. . . House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken a hard line in Bush's favor, said Sunday, "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Democrats were crowing yesterday over what they saw as the clearest signs yet that Republican unity behind the president is beginning to crack. And House Democrats are preparing to up the ante with new legislation that would demand a turnaround in the war by the end of July.

House Democratic leaders are coming together around legislation that would fund the war through September but would withhold more than half of those funds until July, when Bush would have to report on the Iraqi government's progress toward benchmarks such as quelling sectarian violence, disarming militias and sharing oil revenue equitably. Congress would then have to vote in late July to release the remaining funds.

Look for these proposed bench marks to be poison pills, such as de-Baathification which, really, is no longer of the significant importance that it once was. De-Baathification was thought to be the key to brining Sunnis into the government fold. But Sunnis have begun to join the government in droves, irrespective of the status of de-Baathification. Further, such a law promises to be very divisive.

The bill, which could come to a House vote as early as Friday, faces significant obstacles in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) wants to allow the House debate to unfold, in part to see whether the plan will appeal to Republicans.

Some House Democratic leaders are worried that another showdown vote this summer will keep the party's domestic agenda off track. And White House spokesman Tony Snow pronounced the bill "not helpful."

What domestic agenda? This Congress has managed to pass none of the domestic legislation upon which they campaigned. Nor has it suceeded in addressing ear marks or corruption. This Congress is far more about destroying Bush and conservatism then it is about legislating anything of significance.

. . . The new House proposal would immediately provide about $43 billion of the $95.5 billion the administration says it needs to keep the war going through Sept. 30. That infusion would come with language establishing benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and it is likely to include tougher standards for resting, training and equipping troops. Binding timelines for troop withdrawals would be dropped to try to win Republican support and avoid a second veto.

This is Murtha trying to leave in his unconstitutional poison pills that cannot possibly be signed into law by the President. One, such congressionally mandated standards would be unconstitutional. Congress funds - only the President commands. Two, those particular provisions were nothing more then an incredibly cynical gaming of the military system by Murtha in order to prevent troops from being sent to Iraq.

More specifically, not a single soldier or unit has been deployed into combat untrained. Two, Murtha's plan was to prevent units from deploying from the U.S. by requiring them to be at a C-1 readiness rating. The readiness system is based on three factors, people, training and equipment. To be C-1 ready, units have to be rated 90% or above in all three areas. Our troops will never be C-1 on the date of deployment overseas because they do not take their heavy equipment, but rather fall in on that equipment when they arrive in Kuwait. And further, once in Kuwait, our troops not only pick up their equipment, but are given a few weeks to acclimate and conduct all necessary training not otherwise conducted in the U.S. The numbers of units we have sent from Kuwait into combat areas in Iraq or Afghanistan that have been rated less then C-1, fully mission capable are precisely zero. But, with Murtha's planned limits, we would essentially be unable to deploy new units either to Iraq or Afghanistan. If this is in the bill, the President will have to veto it again.

The remaining $52.5 billion in the bill would be contingent on a second vote in late July, after the administration's progress report.

Democrats say that is a reasonable time frame for the first assessment of Bush's troop increase, since the last of the additional troops being sent to Iraq will arrive this month.

The only reason to do this is a Democratic hope to wage what will be a pre-emptive campaign against the long term trends General Petraeus will report in September.

But Petraeus has said repeatedly that it will be at least another month or two after the troops are in place before it will be possible to assess the impact of those reinforcements and, just as important, of the new U.S. approach that is moving combat troops off big, isolated bases and into dozens of smaller combat outposts across Baghdad. When he visited Washington last month, Petraeus told members of Congress that he will be ready to assess his progress by September.

Not even the most optimistic military officials think Baghdad will be quiet by then, but they think they might be able to discern long-term trends.

Given that Harry Reid declared the surge failed and our military defeated by four al Qaeda bombers that exploded themselves the day before his statement, do not expect the Democrats to listen to anything about long term trends. The big push to get us out of Iraq was because it had become a "civil war." With sectarian violence down by two thirds and the vast majority of casualties now being caused by al Qaeda in Iraq's suicide bombs, it would seem that the justification for surrender is already suspect. Nonetheless, the Democrats will seize on any large scale bombs occurring in September to claim the flag of surrender. I am sure this is not lost on Al Qaeda or the Iranians. Look for August and September to be very bloody months for our troops and for the civilians in Iraq. You can thank Harry Reid for that.

Unless Republicans - and Democrats driven by some principal other then partisan political power - start to challenge the gross distortions of the Democrats (see here, here, here and here), and center a true debate on the critical issues, the sheer weight of the endless stream of mindless sound bites coming out of the Democratic leadership will prevail. I truly think that the writing is already on the wall. General Petraeus could claim complete cessation of violence within six months as likely, and it would not matter. The far left will have their surrender, and Bush's head to hang on their wall. And all Americans will pay the price of emboldened radical Islamists, a nuclear Iran, and a greatly destablized Middle East. But all that will likely be after the '08 elections. No reason to start worrying yet, at least according to MoveOn.org and Harry Reid.

Read the entire article here.

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 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...

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...

U.S. Military Equipment Shortfalls a "Disaster"

Retired Major General Robert Scales has addressed the equipment shortfalls now being experienced by our military, which he describes as a disaster:

Most Army brigades are "not combat ready" in part because of equipment shortages. Brigades consist of people and equipment, so the significance of "not combat ready" loses a great deal in translation. . . The bottom line is that virtually any brigade not in Iraq cannot be equipped for war for a very, very long time.

While the true magnitude of the Army's equipment disaster remains clouded in classification, the anecdotal evidence of impending collapse is anywhere you choose to look. For the first time in nearly half a century the 82nd Airborne Division cannot generate enough combat power to put one of its brigades on strategic alert. A retired general friend visited a division at a very large post that has only 30 of its 240 tanks in working order. One general who daily works on equipment issues in the Pentagon reflected on the past: "Remember, after the collapse of the Soviet Union how the Russians left mountains of junked equipment to rust away in Eastern European motor pools? Well, we're nearly there now."

The Army will continue to wear out its equipment at prodigious rates. The pace of this decline is painful to watch. Usage rates for tanks during peacetime are about 550 miles per tank per year. Today in Iraq tanks average over 5,000 miles per year. At these rates the Army will have no choice but to virtually rebuild itself after Iraq.

How did the richest nation on the planet allow its Army to reach this condition? The answer is simply that for half a century every administration has continued the habit of undermanning and underequipping land forces, . . .

. . . The Army went into this war $56 billion short of equipment inside its deployed brigades and was suffering from a $44 billion deficit in delayed or cancelled programs for new weapons and equipment. Now the Army must restock. There are two choices, one cheap, one right. The cheap solution would be to repair the mountain of Cold War fighting gear that served the Army so well in the Gulf War and put it back into action for the next generation.

But cheap won't work because our Cold War fleet was designed to fight on the plains of Europe in huge tank-on-tank engagements against the Soviets. The heavily armored behemoths necessary for this style of war are not suitable for fighting the "long war." Yesterday's tank weighs more than 70 tons. It cannot move great distances. It consumes a huge amount of fuel that must be transported by vulnerable unarmored convoys from Kuwait to Baghdad. It cannot be easily transported by air. And it takes a multitude of repairmen -- many of them civilian contractors -- and a huge base infrastructure to keep it running in the punishing heat and dust of Iraq.

We have learned from painful experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that tomorrow's ground forces must be re-equipped with many more fighting vehicles that are light, mobile, easily transported and capable of keeping more soldiers protected for longer periods. Properly equipping the Army to win the long war will be very expensive. But we have fought 12 wars in the last 30 years and all but one has been decided on the ground. We will fight another one sooner than any of us would like. If we are to break the cycle of underfunding followed by rapid re-funding that has caused so much human tragedy, we must start now and must build a new Army for tomorrow rather than put yesterday's Army back on the shelf.

Read the entire article here. This is at once a disgrace and a crisis. Our military was allowed to truly atrophy in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union - the much vaunted peace divided. Indeed, we are now involved in two wars with a third possible in Iran, yet we have the smallest military since World War II. And there is blame to go around here. While it is beyond doubt that the underfunding of our military spans generations, the fact is that we had six years of a wartime Republican administration that reveled in record levels of domestic pork barrel spending, yet nowhere near enough attention paid to our military. This is unconscionable.

And now we have Democrats such as Jack Murtha who, rather then fix the problem, seek instead to use the problem as a basis for withdrawal from Iraq. Indeed, it would seem a significant amount of funds that could have been used to fix this problem were diverted to pork to buy the votes necessary to legislate that withdrawal - something equally unconscionable. The only way this problem will be fixed is if it sees the light of day. Bush nor any of the elected Republicans have raised this issue with any force. Bush needs to make a public mea culpa on his administrations responsibility for this problem and outline what funds the Congress needs to authorize to fix it -- or, in other words, what is the price tag to "support the troops." Allowing this problem to fester is nonsensical and, in the not too distant future, a sure recipe for disaster.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pelosi in a Hijab . . . An Apt Metaphor For the Democrats in Congress

Today, Democrat’s in the House Armed Services Committee banned the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror.” I am not sure if they think it's over, or they just do not want to be reminded that we are facing a global threat from radical Wahhabi / Salafi Islamists. As one republican aide said, the Global War on Terror, if not over, has at least attained the status among Democrats of “The War That Must Not Be Named.”

When you get right down to it, the words "Global War on Terror" are not the only words that seem to have been banned from the Democrat's lexicon. The other words you do not hear pass the lips of our peace-(and-politcal-power)-at-any-cost Democrats these days are "surge" or "Let's have a briefing from General Petraus." Perhaps if the Dem's asked ABC, they would find that even ABC thinks the surge is having a "large and positive effect" today. Guess the Democrats will have to stop watching that station lest the ugly head of reality intrude upon their world.

None of this should be all that surprising really. The House Armed Services Comittee are just a bit ahead of the curve is all. The reactionary wing of the Democratic Party is now in charge, by its own admission, and the Democrats certainly seem to be dancing to the tune, even when the topic is the Iraq War. Their thinking has turned the corner from concerns of national security to concerns for partisan political gain. Though to be fair not all liberals think that way. At least one had the courage of his convictions and refuse to be cowed by Kos and MoveOn.org. Then again, he is not a Democrat anymore.

The Democratic Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, who not all that long ago was arguing that we needed more troops in Iraq, is now proposing to cut off all funding for our military over there. What a difference one election and an emboldened far left wing make. And on the House side, Pelosi and Murtha are leading the charge to get us out of the war in Iraq. Murtha is claiming that if we just get out of Iraq, the Iraqis will be able to clean the mess up themselves. If only U.S. intelligence agreed with him. Then there is Nancy Pelosi claiming as recently as two weeks ago that Iraq is "separate from the war on terror." You have to wonder if she has ever heard of al Qaeda - because she sure does not seem to understand their position on Iraq.

It is a bit funny that Pelosi and Murtha say that we need to leave Iraq because, among other things, our military is falling apart at the seams. Our military is undersized and there are shortfalls in equipment. One might think that the extra 20 billion dollars Murtha and Pelosi found and then stuffed into the latest supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq could have addressed these shortfalls and been spent to purchase new combat equipment and to enlarge our strategic reserve forces. Instead it went for combat peanut storage and the strategic spinach reserve. Go figure.

And it wasn’t all that long ago that Nancy Pelosi installed a man as head of the House Intelligence committee who does not even know or understand the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam. Honest to God, I did not think there were still many Americans living in the four corners of the U.S. who did not know that. And here Nancy is, able to find one who is actually a member of Congress – and promptly puts him in charge of Intelligence. Its moments like these that one has trouble deciding whether to laugh or cry - or both.

But there is no global war on terror now that the Democrats control the Congress. And it’s a good thing, I guess, otherwise Democratic plans to unionize all of our airport security screeners might sound like a pretty silly idea.

The War on Terrorism we were fighting was, I always thought, ultimately against the radical sect of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam that is at the root of terror. Yet we have Nancy Pelosi herself, along with Henry Waxman, introducing legislation – supported by CAIR, the main Wahhabi / Salafi civil rights organization in America - that would severely effect our ability to maintain a high level of security against that threat through the End Racial Profiling Act.

And thus we come back to it - Pelosi in a hijab. What better metaphor for the Democrats today could there be?

Read More...

Summary only...