World praises Iraq progress DNC "stays the course" on "failed policy" rhetoric

Evidently the rest of the world isn't so consumed with Bush hate as they cannot acknowledge from Iraq's fledgling govt has accomplished against all odds.

A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants "recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq."

It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that "given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable."

In a speech earlier to the conference, Ban said Iraq was "stepping back from the abyss that we feared most," adding that with international help the war-torn country could fulfill its "vision of becoming a free, secure, stable and prosperous nation."

He cautioned however that "the situation remains fragile."

In the meantime, the likely DNC candidate for POTUS stubbornly "stays the course". Just two days ago, Obama has the "audacity" to speak thru his spokesman, Bill Burton, responding to McCain's offer for a joint exploratory trip to Iraq:

"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."

Not confined to the Presidential hopeful, Pelosi herself regurgitated the same ol' line in an interview with the SF Chronicle.

Asked if she saw any evidence of the surge’s positive impact on her May 17 trip to Iraq she responded:

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

Blind hatred and selfish arrogance in order to secure the nation's top political seat are qualities in a leader that requires the US voter to adopt a "willing suspension of disbelief".

OBAMABOTS "TAKE A DUMP" ON PORTLAND's LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL

On a side note, symbolic of Obama's refusal to even recognize, let alone honor, our military's success can be found at his Portland, OR rally... where literally the Obamabots "took a dump" on Portland's fallen law enforcement officers.

Brennan, who controlled the crowd near the Portland Police Memorial, noticed several Porta Potties set up in the middle of the memorial. Brennan had been at the site five days earlier for an annual memorial service and a flag was still set at half mast on the day of the rally.

"There was plenty of room elsewhere so space wasn't an issue," Brennan said. "So someone used some really poor decision making, whoever elected to put them there. I mean, it's somewhat hallowed ground, I guess you could call it."

After several days, Brennan attached a photo he took to a letter and e-mailed it to dozens of media outlets and the Obama campaign.

Brennan said officers haven't heard back from the Obama campaign. He said someone owes an apology to the families of the fallen officers.

The officer, of course, doesn't blame Obama personally. However it's ironically insightful that his followers are just as oblivious to the honor and accomplishments of those that serve as the "messiah" they follow.

More "plans to bomb Iran" Feinstein/Lugar briefed?

Truly a bizarre article in yesterday's Asia Times. Again the usual headline catches my eye - "Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'.

But this article provides startling details... rather like predicting rain drops to the minute, journalist, Muhammad Cohen says to watch for a NYTs op-ed in the next few days by Senators Feinstein and Lugar, protesting the proposed plan.

Even more startling... if it does happen to be factual... is the amount of detail laid out to the awaiting targets. Like Saddam's warning months in advance, again the target has ample time to move the palace patio furniture, so to speak.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents.

Cohen points to the Senate's majority vote resolution to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization as a precursor to the military action - used as part of defense of Iraq and the Quds Forces persistent interference.

One thing is for sure. If this has any fact to it, the NYTs should be running an article quite soon. If they don't, August isn't that far away to see the proof in the pudding.

I've long held this is a DNC pipedream. Short of this being some sort of a power play to force int'l action in the wake of the IAEA's unusually stern report this week, - ala good cop/bad cop - I still would find this highly surprising. With the int'l chess pieces of power on the political ME board morphing daily, it is a risky move indeed.

I guess we'll find out if my crystal ball is not only dusty, but made of cheap plexiglass.

On Urban Warfare and Collateral Damage

There's many talking points and websites that cite statistics of Iraq and Afghanistan's "collateral damage", constantly used as fodder for anti-free Iraq rhetoric. Their problem? They believe the enemy adheres to the same principled warfare as our coalition military. Such a mentality is just western naivety, based on a hopeful idealism. Admirable in theory, but useless in reality.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Urban warfare is hell. I'll be the first to say to any of our US military, shoot first when you believe there is clear and present danger, and ask questions later. I prefer they come home alive, and sort it out via investigations. There can and will be regrettable errors. But we must face facts... this is not the wars of the past, where the enemies wore uniforms and were well defined. The enemies... for the most part.. did not hide behind burkas, children and disabled women.

Today's CBC News out of Canada, "Bomber who struck Canadians was 11 years old, military sources say".

Few details of the attack were immediately available. The soldiers were on foot patrol at about 10 a.m. local time when the bomb exploded.

The Canadian Press quoted a military spokeswoman, Capt. Amber Bineau, as saying the boy is thought to have been wearing an explosive vest when he walked up to the patrol.

She condemned the attack as a "last ditch-attempt" by militants to disrupt the progress of Afghan and NATO forces in establishing security in the country.

"These types of attacks demonstrate a weakness in the insurgency and do not impede the resolve of those who work to make Kandahar province a safe and stable environment," she said in a statement.

There was no official confirmation of the bomber's age or how the bomb was triggered.

snip

In a separate attack not involving NATO forces Wednesday, a suicide bomber dressed in a burka struck a police station in the western province of Farah, killing 12 people and wounding 27 others.

Initial reports said the bomber was a woman, but the Taliban, which claimed responsibility for the attack, said it was carried out by a man named Mullah Khalid wearing the burka as a disguise.

As a reminder to the whiners of the world, allow me to give you a reintroduction to the enemy. The same cowardly enemy that demonstrates no honor in battle. The enemy that hides behind burkas instead of openly wearing a uniform like our coalition guys. The very same enemy that brainwashes "the innocent" into being their walking bombs.... children, disabled men in wheelchairs, or the mentally handicapped. It appears that brave, young jihadists - willing to die - are becoming an endangered species. Bad news for the bad guys.

So the next time you see reports of "women and children" being killed in a raid, and race to the conclusion that we are barbarians equal to those we fight, you might want to ask yourself:

Were they truly innocents? Or were they the next suicide bomber who's fuse hadn't detonated the bombs that kill our warriors?

Cautious optimism presented to Sen Foreign Relations Committee

Before Petraeus and Crocker arrive this week to face the political wrath and wrangling of our Congress, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a media/unheralded slide thru by CFR's Dr. Stephen Biddle on April 2nd. I'm quite sure it was ignored in the media because they found it difficult to find cherry picked phrases in his analysis, "Stablizing Iraq from the Bottom Up", that are absolutes in support of their quest for withdrawal.

The above link to Biddle's paper on Iraq is a H/T to Greg Grant at Tribal Wars. Since someone at Floppping Aces turned me on to Grant's blog, I've been visiting regularly, and taking time to read his past posts. I can tell that Grant and I have some base disagreements. But from his blog presentation, I suspect this is actually a man I could disagree with without it degenerating into venomous personal assaults. And, admirably, he does indeed place a great deal of emphasis on wanting to see our military properly equipped... a place where he and I live harmoniously.

But back to Biddle and his report to the Senate Foreign Relations Commmittee. It's a surprisingly a'political analysis. There's some calling on the carpet for the doubters of Surge success, and those who opposed and preemptively called the Surge a failure. There is also the same for those that supported the Iraq deposition of Saddam, and documented mistakes. All criticism of both sides, however, is done in retrospect, with extremely good taste.

After dancing around not hurting all the politicos' partisan feelings, we are left with an insightful analysis of not only the past years of development/failures in Iraq, but where their future might possibly lie. And what appears to be surprising Biddle the most is the unexpected "bottom up" path for Iraqis to gaining long term stability.

Biddle sees a fragile and workable peace founded on their their provincial localities and local ceasefires. To him, the weakness lies with the national central government which, if it takes too much control, can have the country fall like a house of cards.

But there is a way he sees to ceasefires exising long term... with some sort of a US or UN peacekeeping force in place. Needed at least, perhaps, until younger Iraqi's, not "scarred by the experience of sectarian bloodletting, rises to leadership age in Iraq." Again, our futures like in a youthful generation, not bombarded with ancient history of hate.

This is a 15 page statement, and is worthy of your entire read. But let's see if I can summarize his future projections... leaving his Monday morning quarterback analysis of Iraq's recent past to your own reading.

From the "Conclusions and Implications" section on pg 15 of the PDF:

Iraq’s system of local ceasefires may thus offer an opportunity to stabilize the country and avert the downside risks of failure for the region and for US interests. To realize this opportunity will not be cheap or easy. And it will not produce the kind of Iraq we had hoped for in 2003. A country stabilized via the means described above would hardly be a strong, internally unified, Jeffersonian democracy that could serve as a beacon of democracy in the region. Iraq would be a patchwork quilt of uneasy local ceasefires, with Sunni CLCs, Shiite CLCs, and Shiite militia governance adjoining one another in small, irregularly shaped districts; with most essential services provided locally by trusted co-religionists rather than by a weak central government whose functions could be limited to the distribution of oil revenue; and with a continuing need for outside peacekeepers to police the terms of the ceasefires, ensure against the resumption of mass violence, and deter interference from neighbors in a weak Iraqi state for many years to come.

So far his vision of Iraq doesn't sound much different than Pakistan, or any Muslim government seeking to find a balance and liveable peace between more modern Muslims, a thriving capitalistic economy, and those that desire Sharia law.

But if you will, allow me to interject my own main bone of contention with Biddle's entire paper. He suggests somewhat of an overall failure because Irag will not turn out to be, as he puts it, another "Germany or Japan".

Or, as he says above... "it will not produce the kind of Iraq we had hoped for in 2003."

Bush warned against this notion as far back as a Nov 2003 speech at the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy: Quoted from speech:

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.

Thus the only ones who could be surprised at the Iraqis' finding a "bottom up" alternative solution more appropriate to their needs are the media... the same who assumed and propagated the popular myth that Bush was trying to "westernize" and not "democratize".

For the rest of us who had a more realistic view of a Muslim democracy, and never believed Iraq would be another Germany or Japan, it was only a matter of time.... wondering when Iraq would find it's own way to relative stability.

Now that we have the only major disagreement out of the way, more from Biddle's conclusions. He suggests that the inevitible peacekeeping force must be "international" or accepted. This is, of course, a fatal flaw in al Qaeda and al Jihad Groups' Zawahiri's eyes. Per his recent interview, his organization affords the UN no higher status than he does any western force on Arab lands. But we'll leave that as an aside for now.

There are no guarantees in Iraq. And given the costs and the risks of pursuing stability, a case can still be made for cutting our losses now and withdrawing all US forces as soon as it is logistically practical.

But none of the options are cost or risk-free in Iraq, including withdrawal. A US departure from an unstable Iraq risks an escalation in violence, the prospect of regional intervention, and a much wider war engulfing the heart of the Mideast’s oil production – any responsible proposal for troop withdrawals in Iraq must contend with their risks, which are substantial. All US options in Iraq thus remain unattractive.2 But we must choose one all the same.

Biddle is quite practical. There's no guarantees... and all choices carry risk. Duh wuh! The the following paragraph.. the last one to wrap up the conclusion, I might add, drives the reality home for a cowardly leadership in a political driven liberal Congress in election year.

And the case for cutting our losses in Iraq is weaker today than it was a year ago. The rapid spread of negotiated ceasefires and the associated decline in violence since then has improved the case for remaining in Iraq and paying the price needed to maximize our odds of stability. It will not be cheap, and it is hardly risk-free. But in exchange for these costs and risks we now have a better chance for stability – not a guarantee, but a better chance – than we have seen for a long time.

Yup... hard to cherry pick this one. And I suspect when Petraeus/Crocker come up and present the same future vision, it will be a fact that is hard to ignore.

Hard to ignore unless, of course, the media deliberately avoids the link between this report, and tomorrow's Petraeus/Crocker report.

Zawahiri... in his own words Visions for the Middle Eat

HT to Laura Mansfield of The Mansfield Report, via Gateway Pundit.

Read the full text of open interview with Zawahiri.

There is little excuse for liberal denial anymore. I speak of their naive promises that US exit from Iraq (and even Afghanistan) will appease the global Islamic jihad movement. I have oft pointed out that were we to exit both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are merely sitting with the identical presence in the Middle East as we had on September 11th.

The jihad movement demands far more than withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And those demands are not limited to the withdrawal of US military, but even "Crusader" influence.... which could be interpreted as anything from democratic governments in Arab countries to the McDonalds or Starbucks on the corner of a Dubai or Kuwait City street.

Thus, reprinted below, are some excerpts of Zawahiri... in his own words.. that substantiate the naivety of our DNC candidates and their promised foreign policy gaffes in the works.

First, some cut and paste of questions/responses from the 48 page translation. First INRE the future of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran... plus the jihad movements' visions for their future.

“The first question: what do you expect to happen in Iraq after America’s withdrawal with Allah’s permission? And do the Rejectionist’s armed militias represent a worry to the Mujahideen? And how will the Mujahideen deal with these militias?

First: I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission). As for the militias mentioned, they have failed to eliminate the Jihad with the help of what is called the strongest power in the history of mankind, so will they succeed by themselves or with the help of Iran?

Zawahiri's promise of the jihadis making a "move towards Jerusalem" does not mean, in my opinion, they will immediately set out to attack Israel. Instead it may mean that with clearing out the infidel, they can concentrate on their long term strategy to eliminate Israel and their occupation of territories the jihad movement claims for their Caliphate. More on this below... keep reading.

Zawahiri also scoffs at the notion that if the jihad movement cannot be defeated in Iraq with America's superpower, then Iraq has no chance of defending itself.. even with help from Iran. But he reserves a special message for the Awakening Council in Iraq, and probably for any future similar movement.

“2 – Is there a word you would like to direct, our Shaykh, to the apostates of the Awakening Councils?”

Second: As for the apostates of the Awakening Councils, I tell them: the Mujahideen will – with Allah’s help and will – deal with you according to the tradition of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (with whom Allah was pleased): a war which ousts or a peace which humiliates.

Simply translated, they will fight to the death to in war, or they can surrender and endure the humiliation of their cowardice.

And speaking of Iran...

“The second question: what is Your Eminence’s opinion about the American threats to Iran? And does America really intend to strike Iran? And if that happens, what do you expect will happen in the region? And will it be in the interest of the Mujahideen or not?

Second: the dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region.

Zawahiri seems content to let Iran and the US duke it out, and take on whoever is left standing. But the hope is that any conflict will weaken both, so as to be beyond any influence.

“The third question: What is your evaluation of America’s situation now? Has it really begun to collapse? And what do you expect if the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq? Will you be satisfied with this state of affairs, or will you attempt to drag American into a new war?

Third: There is no doubt that the American collapse has begun, and the myth of unipolarity has ended. And the raids on New York and Washington were identifying marks of this collapse, but I point out that the collapse of empires doesn’t come in a single moment, but rather, may take decades, and the collapse of the Soviet Union is the nearest example of that. And the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the interest of the Muslims with Allah’s permission, and the Jihadi vanguard has announced that its objective on which it will not compromise – at this stage – is the withdrawal of all unbelieving forces from the lands of the Muslims.

Zawahiri's translation uses an odd and irregular form of the word, unipolar... which means a manic depressive disorder. "...myth of unipolarity has ended". To analyze it in the context of a form of "polarity", meaning attraction and/or opposition of two extremes or poles, then adding the "uni", meaning one, it merely nullifies the push/pull of extremes.

Truthfully, this translation doesn't clearly convey Zawahiri's message for is confusion of term. However what is clear is that Zawahiri marks 911 as a major turning point in America's collapse. And my guess he probably means collapse from within.. perhaps by setting the nation into deep, "manic" divide. But that is merely my speculation.

INRE dragging America into another war. Zawahiri simply states that US forces are not the only intruders on his desired Caliphate. *Any* forces and influences that are unbelievers must go. That will include NATO forces (see UN comments further below). And extending to "influence", any western business influence they consider "unIslamic".

“The fourth question: I request Your Eminence to give us a look at the future of the Jihadi march: i.e. after five or six years, how will the situation be in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Land of the Two Sanctuaries, the Islamic Maghrib, Chechnya, Somalia and Darfur? (Mata Note: I believe the Land of Two Sanctuaries is Saudi Arabia)

Fourth: I expect – by the grace of Allah – the spreading of the Jihadi tide and an increase in its influence corresponding to the receding of the influence of the Crusaders, Jews and their agents in the places I mentioned.

Note carefully, the goal is to eliminate the influence of Jews and Crusaders entirely. And Zawahiri sees a rise of Islamic law in ratio to a decline of western influence over the next five years.

He states again the goals more clearly in another question/answer section. This in regard, not to western occupation and influence, but directly against what he considers "apostate" regimes.... or Arab regimes that abandon or renounce Islam in their rule.

“8: What is the usefulness of Jihad combat actions against the apostate Arab regimes, which usually target the regimes’ lackeys without severing the heads? And how do you evaluate the results of these actions, especially in Algeria, Egypt and the country of the two Sanctuaries?”

Eighth: I talked before about the Jihadi actions in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula, and I referred to our practical discretion at this stage, but I would like to add here three notes:

1) The clash with the corrupt regimes must occur sooner or later if we want to set up the Muslim state and liberate the lands of Islam.

2) The overall position is open to adjustment from one territory to another. So for
example, in Algeria the brothers pair targeting of Jewish and Western interests with waging a guerilla war against the hireling government, because their circumstances make it possible for them to do that.

3) Severing the heads isn’t the objective: rather, the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government. And the means of change differ from one territory to another.

I repeat... "the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government." So in the first stated goal above, it was to see receding influence of Jews and Crusaders. But there is a second stated goal. Once the jihad movement can bring American resolve to her knees, their next target are the Arab governments themselves - those who do not implement and rule by Islamic law.

These governments are also marked for demise by mere cooperation with the west on intelligence.Even perhaps, by trade. And it is this phrasing that makes me believe the "move towards Jerusalem" is actually the quest to surround Israel with the Islamic Caliphate.

Which brings us to the first volume of pages where Zawahiri was pretty beat up by numerous questions (taken in advance and answered in bulk later...) on their disregard towards killing fellow Muslims.

His responses are vast and repetitive over the oft answered subject. But they ever followed the same theme.... Muslims who cooperate with Crusaders are infidels, and thereby fair game in jihad. They do not kill "innocents", however do admit that there are times when they die because they are used as a "human shield", as the infidel situates himself amidst the Muslim community.

I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets, but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

Using the inherent belief that any association and cooperation with those the jihad movement considers infidels and the enemy, Muslims who indulge in democracy, elections, anything with western influence, are targets. But there will be no international presence in the jihadi's Caliphate either... For Zawahiri has specifically targeted the United Nations as an enemy, and taunted them for their fast withdrawal in Iraq upon confrontation.

The operation on the 11th of December was against the headquarters of the United Nations and the Constitutional Assembly and Police Academy, not against children’s schools or women’s hospitals. And the United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims: it is the one which codified and legitimized the setting up of the state of Israel and its taking over of the Muslims’ lands. It is the one which considers Chechnya an inseparable part of Crusader Russia, and consider Ceuta and Melilla inseparable parts of Crusader Spain. And it is the one which codified the Crusader presence in Afghanistan through the Bonn conference, and codified the Crusader presence in Iraq through its various resolutions, and approved the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, while it doesn’t recognize that [right] for Chechnya, nor for all the Muslim Caucasus, nor for Kashmir, nor for Ceuta and Melilla, nor for Bosnia.

Allah granted success to the heroic Amir and – as we consider him – martyr Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi (may Allah have mercy on him), and he blew up the headquarters of the United Nations in Baghdad at the beginning of the Crusader invasion of Iraq, and its remnants turned back in flight. And thus he ruined the Crusaders’ plans to cover the Crusader invasion with international forces which wouldn’t provoke Arab and Islamic sensitivities. This is the same ruse which the Crusaders used in Lebanon, and so the forces of Hizbullah withdrew 30 kilometers to the rear and approved an international Crusader presence to occupy the lands of the Muslims on Lebanese soil, and the leadership of Hizbullah even promised to preserve the safety of those Crusader forces occupying the Muslims’ lands.

There is much much more here - giving us an unedited view into the enemy's mind and goals. The question is, will our media blind the electorate to the truth by ignoring and minimizing Zawahiri's words? And next POTUS even bother to listen?

Pelosi warns Petraeus ... doesn't want any good news

Ah yes... another Petraeus visit to Congress. And I guess the MoveOn.org funds prohibit another slanderous ad because Pelosi, herself - backed up by Ike Skelton and Howard Berman - called a press conference to lay out the predictable DNC un'welcome mat.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”

Caught "off guard"??? This woman needs to read something other than Redbook when getting her nails done. Prior to the start of Operation Calvary Charge, the US offered to place Special Forces and air power near the theatre as back up. The Iraqi's politely refused. Tough to offer aid in advance when you're caught off guard, don't you think?

According to even citizen Iraqis, they've known about OCC for months. In fact, word is it was supposed to start a week earlier, but was delayed for Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's cold feet.

And dictated from Iran? Good god, woman. First you want everyone to "talk" to Iran. And when Maliki does, now you say Iran is "dictating" cease fire terms. Pick a talking point and stay on it, if you can.

Ahmadinejad visited Iran... with barely a welcome wagon. His offers of aid and projects were refused by Iraq. And to quote Nibras Kazimi of Talisman Gate directly...

"The UIA delegation that visited al-Sadr went public in denouncing any media talk of Iranian intervention in calming down the situation and described such talk as “enemy propaganda”.

What we do have is yet another DNC ploy to use a responsive, anti-free-Iraq media to discredit Petraeus in advance. And this is appalling. Congress should be listening to events from commanders on the ground... not the New York Times.

Reports of Maliki's demise are premature...

As Mark Twain said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". So it is with the western press's rush to declare Maliki's demise.

Media outlets - overjoyed that the Basra battle provided a rare opportunity to declare the Surge "failure" - are now falling all over themselves to pronounce Maliki's Operation Calvary Charge against Sadr'ist area mobsters and cartels a loss. Odd to assume that with one battle, a "war" is won *or* lost. Frankly, I've been looking at it as a great start for Iraqi's policing their own.

But before you get all caught up in the mantra of defeat and parroted phrases of western media, I suggest a perspective from one with more inside knowledge... Nibras Kazimi's "The 'Intifada' that Wasn't" at Talisman Gate.

I won that wager. I had written that “the Iraqi Army’s military operation in Basra will be a spectacular win against disorder and Iranian influence”. And I was right.

Of course, most western media outlets are declaring Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran as the victors of Operation Cavalry Charge. Nothing could be furthest from the truth.

The United Alliance List delegation comprising Ali al-Adib of the Da’awa Party, Hadi al-Ameri of the Badr Organization and (I think…) Qasim al-Sahlani representing a group that had splintered from the Da’awa Party, evidently made al-Sadr an offer he couldn’t refuse when they sat down for a friendly chat in Tehran two days ago: the Iraqi state was willing to go all the way in smashing the Sadrist movement—arresting all the leaders and shutting down all the offices—if he didn’t play along with Operation Cavalry Charge and hand over those operatives whose names appear on the wanted lists.

See Maliki went to Basra with a long-ish list of names comprising all those involved in oil smuggling, drug dealing and the various other crimes that have wracked Basra. It just so happens that many of them claim to be Mahdi Army commanders.

This is what I wrote a couple of days ago:

snip... continue reading at link above - truly a MUST REA

Haditha "massacre" myth quietly dissolves Ignored by media and ACLU

FrontPage Magazine's Ben Johnson article today, "The Party of Defeat’s Haditha Lie Crumbles", brings two very important points to bear.

1: The media hype, stoked by Murtha's accusations of murder in cold blood, kept Haditha in the forefront of headlines. Now that the electorate has formed an opinion of Murtha, as the defender of the Iraqi innocent, and the US Marine as a cold blooded killer, the media ignores the dismissal of charges of the third of the fourth defendants. The charge? Not murder. But failure to "properly identify every target before opening fire."

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

There was also the prosecution's star witness, Lance Cpl Humberto Mendoza, a Venezuelan citizen “trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers.” Mendoza accused Tatum of issuing orders for Mendoza to kill and, upon refusal he says, Tatum pulled the trigger.

Minor detail in the he said-he said battle. Tatum passed a lie detector. Mendoza failed.

2: What about torture? Isn't the ACLU, Congress and the electorate all up in arms about "torture"? Or is "torture" acceptable because it's performed on US soldiers?

If leftists genuinely cared about U.S. troops, they would have protested the conditions of the Haditha soldiers' interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys when requested, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not allow them to take bathroom breaks, forcing the men to relieve themselves into bottles. This far outstrips most of the accusations made against U.S. soldiers.

Certainly many of the above conditions are what constitutes "torture" to the left. Which begs the question of where is the ACLU in all this?

I suggest their distinct absence on behalf of the Haditha accused shows that the ACLU cares not about torture, but about giving comfort and opportunity for freedom to our enemy. They are, plain and simple, on the wrong side of the battlefield.

Basra: A glimpse into a future Iraq under DNC foreign policy

Gordon Brown's admin has done the GOP a favor in the pre'election run up... they have, with their premature withdrawal from Basra, demonstrated to the world what will happen in Iraq if coalition troops leave before the Iraqis are fully capable of holding their own.

"Holding their own" includes more than just troops training, or political reconciliation - assuming... when you view the US DNC vs GOP... there is such a thing as political reconciliation. Part of Iraq's battle to be self-sufficient also depends upon competent structure in their finance/budget execution departments. For what good is having a stellar military if they cannot appropriate gear and ammunition? And what good is political reconciliation if they can allocate funds for national projects, but can not implement them due to bureaucratic red tape?

Today's Telegraph finds some US senior advisors giving our UK ally a discreet slap on the hand for governing via poll results.

Although British commanders in Basra still intend to play only a back-seat role, the deteriorating security picture nationwide prompted harsh comments from the principal architect of the surge strategy.

Mr Kagan, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think-tank, told The Sunday Telegraph: "British forces have an obligation to step up when needed and it sure looks here like they're needed.

"It is rather a watershed moment in the Anglo-American alliance. I understand that your Prime Minister has already said that the special relationship is over. There's an issue here of fulfilling your obligations as an ally, freely undertaken."

His fellow surge architect, retired US general Jack Keane, also voiced doubts that the Iraqi security forces would be able to pacify Basra unassisted. "There are about 8,000 armed militiamen with a stranglehold on the people of Basra. The situation in Basra has deteriorated since the British pulled out."

Their comments are likely to embarrass Downing Street and anger British commanders in Basra, who have insisted their policy of scaling down their presence is to encourage Iraqi security forces to take the lead. Senior officers also said that the coalition command in Baghdad approved their plans.

snip

Mindful of US unease over Basra, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, will signal this week that there will be no withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq this spring.

He will tell the Commons that "all options remain under review", but government sources said it was accepted within the military that any troop withdrawal at this time would be "presentationally unacceptable".

This is the same British Sec'y of Defense who - just days ago in the thick of the Basra battle (March 29th) - stated in an interview that Britain should negotiate with the Taliban and Hezbollah. But, in the next breath, also noted that there was *no* negotiating with al Qaeda.

Defense Sec'y Browne is the perfect embodiment of a leader who lacks the education and comprehension of the enemy and their alliances. Ruling power achieved via violence, and the desire for strict adherence to (their version of) Islamic law, are the common threads of the multi pronged global Islamic jihad movement.

In short, you can no more separate al Qaeda from Hezbollah or the Taliban than you can separate the differing membership of medical professionals from the AMA.

The Basra battle was looming - and is necessary in Iraq's long term future - prior to it's recent kickoff. Or, as Iraqi visiting fellow, Nibras Kazimi put it in his 3/25/08 blog post, "Operation Calavary Charge (Updated)", at Talisman Gate:

This is Operation ‘Cavalry Charge’, which is the best translation I could come up with for صولة الفرسان.

Its chief objective is to flush out the organized crime cartels that control the port of Basra and the oil pipelines of the province. One major criminal force in the Basrawi scene are groups that affiliate themselves with the Sadrist movement and its Mahdi Army. Many of these criminal rings are also associated with certain factions of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard that operate in Basra both for intelligence/sabotage purposes as well as enriching themselves. By knocking out these egregious manifestations of lawlessness, Operation Cavalry Charge will have the accrued benefit of mashing up the more subtle patterns of Iran’s malignant influence in Iraqi Shiism’s foremost economic prize, the oil fields and port of Basra.

But is this how this story is being reported by the US and Arab media? Of course not!

The dominant false narrative du jour goes something like this: the Sadrists are angry over a number of things (arrests, political wrangling with the Hakim family and the Da’awa Party, etc.) so they decided to back away from Sadr’s seven-month ‘ceasefire’ (a term invented by the western media as a deliberately wrongful translation of تجميد وإعادة هيكلة جيش المهدي: “freezing and restructuring the Mahdi Army”) by staging ‘civil disobedience’ (…such as shutting down primary schools and shops by threatening teachers, students and the middle class) but things quickly deteriorated into the perpetual cycles violence that these journalists and pundits are mentally wedded to and have staked their thin expertise on predicting as Iraq’s inevitable fate.

If little old me had known about Operation Cavalry Charge a month ago then it stands to reason that the Sadrists and the Iranians had heard about it too. In fact, it was supposed to start a week ago, but got delayed allegedly because Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim got cold feet. However, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forced the issue and flew down to Basra a couple of days ago (media reports said he got in yesterday; I was told something else) to personally oversee his boldest move yet: demonstrating that he’s got the gumption to use Iraqi security resources to battle Shia militias and crime cartels and take back Iraq’s vital economic nerve-center, all without appealing for American help and in a direct challenge to Iranian objectives.

The events in Basra are a lose-lose scenario for the DNC posturing on Iraq. They lose in their calls for withdrawal as a way to further Iraq's progress. The British turned over control of Basra to the Iraqis prematurely. Were they still in control, Operation Calvary Charge would have been delayed, allowing yet more time for Iraq military progress and increased equipment.

Yet the British semi-abandoment is somewhat of a blessing in disquise, as now the world can envision Iraq's future with a US premature withdrawal under Obama or Clinton. The Iraqis demonstrated their intents and desires to clean out the criminal cartels in their country. And, despite their fledgling status (and with a little help from US air strikes and some British side fire) they have won the battle. Sadr has called his street dogs off.

The DNC naysayers also lose when they deem Iraq as ungovernable, and in the midst of a civil war. This is about as much a "civil war" as US police actions against mobsters, cartels and gangs operating in US borders. To call Iraqis killing Iraqis (irrespective of Sunni or Shia) civil war demands the same label apply to American on American gang and criminal violence. It should also be noted we have a higher number of of those "American insurgent" deaths.

There are most definitely "wins" here in Iraq progress. The plan and will to secure Basra by the Maliki gov't is a step forward. The fact they lasted so long on their own before getting coalition aid a few days later shows they not only have the will to police their own country, but they are getting better at doing so.

Another win is for Maliki himself, long portrayed as Sadr's puppet and paid official. While it held some truth in the past, as Sadr's support catapulted Maliki to a position of power, that relationship has been altered.

But the biggest win goes to the Iraqis themselves. For it not only shows the govt plans on policing the entire nation, sans cartels, but shuns Iranian influence simultaneously. It is their way of saying their intrusive neighbor - "our port... our control... hands off".

Now picture our future. A newly elected DNC POTUS pulls US troops, leaving Iraq's so-called "civil war" in the hands of the Iraqis. Basra now goes nationwide wide, and the new Iraq police and military forces are overwhelmed, and under supplied with gear, vehicles and munitions. The jihad radicals are, of course well armed with black market war supplies by Iran, Syria, and every other underground channel they can tap. Thre is no dearth in middle east nations that want to see a free Iraq fail.

Iraq's failure or success will lay squarely on the hands of the next CIC, and how he/she chooses to continue our presence in Iraq. And yet, I will wager that if they do the right thing, and Iraq assumes competent control over their future without US troops, the DNC will bemore than willing and quick to take credit for success.

But they will be just as quick to dig a mass grave for the plethora of 2005-2008 press stories of their past - filled with withdraw/surrender demands.

The Battle for Basra Iraqis show the world, and Iran, their intents

I've been watching the battle for Basra the past 24 hours. The guys over at Flopping Aces have a PDF story from McClatchy News yesterday. The McClatchy DC bureau has another version of the story today with Maliki 72 hour ultimatum.

I can save you some time, as you can easily detect McClatchy's consistently twisted brand of Iraq war journalism and serious lack of broadcast integrity by their headlines alone....

Iraq fighting is worst in months; Maliki issues ultimatum

Is 'success' of U.S. surge in Iraq about to unravel?

Violence is down, but Iraq still faces a long, hard road

You get the drift... it's always something with that group. "Violence is down, BUT..." "Success about to unravel?" Obviously a bunch of whiners who appeal to a readship of victims.

There is a common error here in western press, drawing lines from this Basra battle to the Surge. They are not, however, connected. Basra security was handed over to the Iraqis by the British, formally, in Dec 2007 after a 6 month run up to the event. It should also be noted that violence has been on the uptick since their withdrawal.

If nothing else, the increase in violence is what the POTUS candidates should notice... a perfect example of what may happen if we leave Iraq prematurely. In the case of Basra, rival Shia factions vying for power over the locals in the wake coalition troops leaving.

The Brits have a presence at an airbase outside of Basra. But they're sitting this one out. So this is it, folks... this is the moment the DNC and anti-free-Iraq types have been waiting for. And all that you naysayers have been demanding of Iraq... they are stepping up to the plate to defend themselves.

And what do they get for it? No atta boys from the western media. No cheerleading for success. Just moaning and more moaning about failure, corruption, violence and predictions for more failure. Apparently the western media and their flock of uneducated sheeple still don't know which side they are supposed to be rooting for.

But I think my favorite take on Basra comes from Lt. Col. Caveman at Rambling from the Rock. Da Lt. always seems to have a particularly sage vision on strategy and the big picture. And this is no exception.

Oil is the wealth of the Iraqi nation. As long as crime cartels and militants control sections of the country's wealth, it can never be truly free and self-sustaining. Maliki is ridding the country of it last main non-government militia (the Mahdi Army) and a entrenched criminal organizations, controlled mostly by Special Groups. He is seeking to limit Iranian influence in his country.

In addition, this operation officially ends his ties with Sadr, who's 30 parliamentary seats, put Maliki into power and has up to this time prevented the government from embracing reconcilitation to a greater extent.

Early in December, a "memorandum of understanding" was signed between the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Dawa Party. Maliki also needed to enlist the support of Hakim's Badr Organization to seal his control of the country. Most military units in Southern Iraq are heavily Badr. Given that these forces are now listening to Maliki and attacking the Mahdi Army and Special Groups, it is obvious that Maliki is telling Iran to get out of Iraq and quit meddling in Iraqi politics by directly attacking those forces Iran supports. In turn, he intends to fully establish his government legitimacy over the country's oil wealth.

I concur with Talisman Gate. Far from this action being a flare up of violence, it is truly a consolidation of nationalistic power across the country and an indirect attack on Iranian influence in the region. The absence of US forces in the mix are a way for Maliki to show other countries his forces are now strong enough to stop defend his country. The presence of US troops in his country will prevent any overt attack. This operation is designed to stop subversive attacks within his country.

Kurdish forces have always been strong in the North and have continued to secure this region. Coalition forces in the center are busy defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq wholesale. The southern fight is Maliki's and he aims to show all Iraqis he can protect his country.

Yup, yup and waaaay yup, Lt. Col. Good overview of Maliki putting both rogue Sadr'ists and Iran on notice. And I hope he succeeds.

It should be noted that the LtCol references and quotes Talisman Gate, blog of Nibras Kazimi. I haven't gotten around to reading this blog more thoroughly. But Ramblin's recommendation is all I need to add it to my bookmarks. But here is updates from Kazimi on today's battlefield status.

UPDATE, Wednesday, March 26, 2008:

Operation Cavalry Charge in Basra is going much better than anticipated; solid leadership coupled with a much-diminished enemy is harvesting very quick results.

Here are the key points on Day 2 of the operation:

-The word from Hayyania, one of Basra’s most populated and poorest neighborhoods, is that the situation is calm and under control. The Iraqi Army has taken up positions in the main thoroughfare while the criminal gangs and the Sadrists seem to be sitting this one out—they’re not engaging the government troops and are instead keeping a low profile.

-Both the Army commander of Operation Cavalry Charge, Lt. Gen. Mohan Hafidh al-Freiji, and the police commander, Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf al-Muhammadawi, are very able commanders and brave men, with al-Muhammadawi, an ex-tank officer in the Iraqi Army, tending towards brutality. He’s also helped by the fact that he can draw upon important tribal relations in the all-important Albu-Muhammed tribe of nearby ‘Amara Province.

snip - continue reading at TG's blog, please... it's worth it!

In the meantime, it sure would be nice if the western media had a clue to the import of this event. It not only shows that the Iraqi military, while not necessarily ready to sustain the entire nation, is coming up to speed. And that the new gov't is serious in maintaining their status as a new country with a future.

Alas, a narcissistic western media sees everything sees events in Iraq as all about a Bush failure, and another opportunity to portray the Surge as a failure. Too bad... they are missing history... watching the Iraqis police their own as nation, free from a despot. Iraqis should be proud!

On Saddam's Order

Mark Eichenlaub, manager and editor of The Regime of Terror, has an analysis of the latest Iraq Perspectives Project, Vol I (aka, the Pentagone Report IV). Read "On Saddam's Order" at National Review Online.

I blogged on this report back on March 13th, snarling and growling at the misleading headlines and pack of lies that were being passed off as journalism. But since that time, many - most with far more expertise than I - are pouring thru the 94 page document and expounding on the details.

Several media outlets - but not an overwhelming amount by any means - have done some great work. But Mark has taken it a step further - giving a much needed (however gentle) slap across the face by those who indulge in "the meaning of is... is" word games. Ya made me smile, Mark!

Excerpts below are the opening, and closing paragraphs. But I highly recommend everything in the middle as a "must read".

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media when they discuss relations between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaeda network. This became clear yet again last week when news outlets reported on the Department of Defense-sponsored Iraqi Perspectives Project (all five volumes of which are now available here). The vast majority of news reports focused on a single sentence that was incorrectly taken to mean that no ties, links, relations or connections of any sort existed between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the al-Qaeda movement.

What exact word or phrase best describes the relations between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamic terror groups, is certainly debatable. What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein’s regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.

snip

Instead of squabbling over who is and isn’t a member of al-Qaeda and what the requirements of a “link” or “connection” are, this report details Saddam’s broad support for (and sometimes direction of) a multitude of terrorist groups targeting Americans and American allies. Based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam’s Iraq did not just use terrorism against America and her allies but took advantage of “the rising fundamentalism in the region” as an “opportunity to make terrorism . . . a formal instrument of state power.” Because of Saddam’s removal, which came at considerable cost in American blood and gold, a “formal instrument” of state terrorism is no longer secretly plotting to kill Americans. The American public deserves to know what a threat was removed for that price.

Now if we could just get them to stop playing the same game with what constitutes a WMD, or al Qaeda as the pure definition of the enemy.

More quiet success in war on Islamic jihad WaPo article from Saudi journalist

No sensationalist headline. Not even a modicum of an "atta boy" in success attached to Faiza Saleh Ambah's WaPo story today, "Out of Guantanamo and Bitter Toward Bin Laden".

On the surface, the story seems simple and detached from the political battles of triumphs or failure against the global Islamic jihad movement. Khalid al-Hubayshi, 32yrs old, was one of Bin Laden's fighters captured in Tora Bora, and held at Camp Gitmo until 2006. Today he's back in his native Saudia Arabia, working as a controller at a utilities company. And per this article, quite embittered with a less than glorious call to jihad. Thank goodness.. because were he still a jihad warrior, the last place he needs to work is at a utilities facility.

Woven thruout his story as a naive and impressionable 19 yr old, who idolized Bin Laden, are startling documentations of success in the war of ideology with jihad.

He was released in 2006 into a world radically altered by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Muslim fighters were no longer viewed in Arab countries as larger-than-life heroes, and clerics had stopped urging young Muslims to fulfill their religious duties by fighting on behalf of their brethren.

Hubayshi had also changed. He had grown disillusioned with bin Laden, whose initial idealism had turned into terrorism, he said, adding that his family, "not bin Laden," had suffered when he was at Guantanamo.

Muslim fighters no longer viewed as heroes? What hasn't this remarkable change made major headlines?

al-Hubayshi still feels betrayed by OBL at Tora Bora.

Weeks later [after 911], an associate of bin Laden came seeking experienced fighters, and those without families left for Tora Bora. In the trenches there, the fighters ate and slept and cleaned their weapons, surrounded by the distant sounds of bombardments.

"Bin Laden was convinced the Americans would come down and fight. We spent five weeks like that, manning our positions in case the Americans landed," he said.

As the airstrikes moved closer, and with the United States' Afghan allies advancing, bin Laden decided to retreat and left one morning. His aides told 300 Arab fighters to make their way to Pakistan and surrender to their embassies.

Pakistani authorities stopped the fighters near the border and handed them over to the U.S. military, which sent them to Guantanamo Bay.

Hubayshi then states, "The whole way to Cuba, I prayed the plane would fall," he said. "There was no dignity in what he made us do."

Hubayshi said he is sorry that Muslims carried out the Sept. 11 attacks because they targeted civilians: "That was wrong. Jihad is fighting soldier to soldier."

snip

In all the years he spent trying to help Muslims, Hubayshi said, he regrets he did not do more.

"My dream was that I would fight when there was fighting, and teach children when there was peace," he said. "I'm sorry we left Afghanistan with so much war and death. I wish we had built hospitals or schools."

The Arab world's increasing rejection of the Islamic jihad movement's tactics, combined with increased awareness, as demonstrated by Habayshi, are landmarks in a battle against a stateless enemy. Landmarks that, sadly, would not have been possible but for the resulting war in Iraq. Given the chance to brazenly demonstrate their brutal warfare, the wanton killing of fellow Muslims, innocent women and children included, became the foundation for Iraq's The Awakening bond. Outside of Iraq, it has greatly diminished their respect in the Muslim world who once considered them "heroes".

Quiet success? Absolutely. Had we not liberated Iraq, and the cards fell as they may, it is most likely that the jihad fighters still would be idolized as heroes today, and more young men as Habayshi ensnared in their delusions of glory.

"Withdrawal" promises fuel Iraq violence Harvard study: The Emboldenment Effect

Researchers at Harvard say that public debates about the rights and wrongs of the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents there, and periods when there is a lot of media coverage about the issue are followed by small rises in the number of attacks.

The researchers, a political scientist and a health economist, studied data about insurgent attacks and U.S. media coverage up to November 2007, tracking what they called "anti-resolve statements," either by U.S. politicians or in the form of reports about American public opinion on the issue.

The study, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, uses quantitative analysis, a statistical tool employed by economists, to empirically test for the first time the widely held nostrum that public criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq encourages insurgents there.

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases," the study says. In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent.

Gee, ya think? Should be obvious, but it takes Harvard researchers, Radha Iyengar, Jonathan Monten, to confirm the obvious to the oblivious - noted in Shaun Waterman's UPI article, "Analysis: Debate on Iraq fuels insurgency".

Anti-resolve... meaning the commitment to bear the cost to succeed. Or, to clarify with their own words, I'll quote from the introduction to the report itself, "Is There an "Emboldenment Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq"

A rational terrorist model suggests that insurgent actors should increase attacks on an occupying country when that country is closer to the margin of withdrawal.1 Researchers have identified the general importance of credible commitments in the initiation and termination of conventional and civil wars and parallels have been made to the case of counterinsurgency campaigns.2 In the context of insurgency, this “resolve” refers to the perceived commitment of the counterinsurgent to bearing the costs of defeating insurgency.

An excerpt from the report gives clue to how the insurgents may use US withdrawal rhetoric in their strategy.

How might the perceived level of US resolve influence an insurgent organization’s choice of violence?

First, declining resolve might directly raise the level of anti-government violence initiated by the insurgents as insurgents respond to information that increasing the costs of engagement will force the US to withdraw.8

Second, declining resolve might reduce support among the wider population for the incumbent government increasing the number of individuals willing to participate in the insurgency. These “fence-sitters” are the critical population for victory.9

The key point of contention is security - creating the belief among the population that pro-government forces can offer better protection than anti-government forces.10The perception of declining resolve can reduce support for the government among the population if it places the commitment to population protection in doubt. Fence-sitters no longer feel safe remaining loyal to the government and are less likely to collaborate with the government if the counterinsurgent forces cannot credibly protect them from future reprisals from insurgents.

In short, the global Islamic jihad movements not only use violence to keep the American citizens and media in a chasm over costs of the war** (and the doubt of success), but to force the Iraqis into a state of constant distrust. A distrust in the continued US assistance, plus instilling doubt about their own government's ability to provide security.

**Consider the references to the war's cost vs commitment, on the heels of the Ben Feller AP story today, "Bush defiantly defends war in Iraq", ... an article where Bush states the complaints now turn to economic cost. Since news from Iraq is no longer filled with daily escalating violence, a new excuse is needed to keep the anti-war movement motivated. Whether the argument is the justification for OIF, deaths of US soldiers or Iraqi citizenry, labels of "civil war", slow progress by the Iraq Assembly, or the costs of the war, the end result is the same. A changing goal post of reasons for withdrawal.

And if this report holds true to form, the increasing new "withdrawal" cry for reasons of US dollars should lead to yet another increase in Iraq violence in it's wake.

Since choosing particular coverage and labeling it inflammatory came down to a subjective judgment, the researchers used two kinds of news stories for their foundation.

In addition to "the release of major polls regarding American attitudes towards the war in Iraq," their index includes mentions by senior Bush administration officials of "statements or actions by other U.S. political figures that might encourage violent extremist groups in Iraq."

But hold on... the Harvard researchers aren't so all fired anxious see the aftermath of it's release, fearing the supporters for the Iraq cause will seize on it, and try to silence war critics.

"We are a little bit worried about that," Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government told United Press International in an interview. "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war."

But he added the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate about military undertakings.

"There's a body of research, which we cite … that suggests that public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively," he said.

Allow me point out something to those brilliant minds at Harvard. It is *not* the anti-war crowd that is being silenced. It is the voices of those who support success for Iraq. The media, dictating public opinion and hanging on Pelosi and Murtha's every anti-war utterance, are overwhelmingly negative in balance. So who is silencing whom?

Needless to say, this study should be an interesting foray into the headlines... assuming the MSM picks it up at all.

Mind you, I am not advocating a restriction on freedom of speech and dissent. It is the very heart of our country. However I am saying that, considering the effects of the vile and venomous remarks of our Congress and media, the rhetoric should be toned down to civil discourse, and the media coverage far more balanced. After years of accusations that our mere US presence is the cause of the Iraq increased violence, it appears some responsibility for that violence can be laid directly at the feet of the Congress, pollsters and the media, who insist upon fueling the terrorists with promises of withdrawal.

________________________________

UPDATE March 22, 2008. This Jan 2008 article from Arthur Chenkoff, appearing in Pajamas Media, shows a study by Sacred Heart University echos the Harvard study.

Nearly three-quarters of all Americans surveyed, 70.7%, indicated they strongly or somewhat agreed that negative media reporting damages troop morale. Over half of all survey respondents, 59.8%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq because it encourages terrorists, and about half, 49.1%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that things are likely going better for the U.S. than the U.S. media portrays.

What's wrong with this picture??

Indeed, what is wrong with this picture? Mother Cindy Sheehan (in the background) and her obviously spell-challenged flock display banners proving that they not only think we've been in Iraq "5 years to many", but that they believe 12 years of public education must be 12 years TOO many! Perhaps a few hours less spent protesting, and more hours with a nose down to the books is in order?

Many thanks to GatewayPundit for giving me a big grin today!

BEWARE MEDIA HEADLINE LIES! From the Pentagon Report IV

Again the reading comprehension challenged media rears it's ugly head. Splashed everywhere in headlines of varying forms:

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida.. per Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers.

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

Whoa there, Nelly. Let's back up, shall we? The "exhaustive" review is a sheer Strobel dramatization. Assuming Strobel wasn't describing the analysts' state of mind while preparing the report, the reality given (as stated in the report) is that of the 600,000 or so docs, only 15% had been translated into English. And, presumably, used for this report.

There is no substitute for a complete read of this document. Trust not your local supposed "journalist" with your own education of the facts.

Link to full report available at this ABC article "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda", or order direct from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia in paper or CD versions via US Mail services. Warning, it's a 94-pg, 11.74MB PDF). Oh yes... so much for it being "hidden" from public view, right?

Again, these minimum faux pas aside, I am stunned as to the headlines when you read the report. For those "give me the short version" types, let's leap to the conclusion on page 45 of the report (pg 65 of the PDF version).

One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there
anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting

(1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats,

(2)the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and

(3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

Hummm... so far, not such a slam dunk proving we had "no justified reason" to eye Saddam warily. In fact, I'd say most American's may sit back and say "wow! I didn't know that!". It's hardly the "no threat" BS pounded into our sheeple heads for the past five years.

So let's go back to the gloating headline... that "no link" between Saddam and al Qaeda bit, and see what the report really did say. From the Executive Summary:

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents
uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement.

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks.

No "smoking gun" or "direct connection" was found. I have a serious beef with the media interpretation of this as a headline. And perhaps with the authors for not spelling it out so that the history-challenged can fully understand the global Islamic jihad players and their backgrounds. But the key word here is "direct".


SADDAM REGIME TIES VIA MULLA OMAR's TALIBAN
and PAKISTAN's MAULANA FAZLUR RAHMAN

If I purchase a 6 pack of Budweiser from the local mart, am I supporting Anheiser-Busch? If I buy an appliance made in China from Walmart, am I supporting Chinese industry? If I donate to a charity, whom I know full well works with a designated terror group, am I culpable for supporting terrorism?

The answer to all three is an emphatic "YES". I've no "direct" sale link to Anheiser-Busch or China, but I am most certainly engaging in a relationship that benefits the other end of the "triangulation". And if I knowingly provide monetary aid to a charity that is passing it along to a terrorist network, I most certainly am supporting terrorism.

So we have it that, in Nov of 1999, the Taliban's commander Mulla Omar sent his personal Defense Minister, the Maulana Fazlur Rahman (of today's Pakistan's JUI-F) to meet with Saddam to ask for aid. From the IIS agent's confiscated diary, and quote from Ray Robison's "Both in One Trench",

According to the record of the event, the Saddam regime agreed to provide that vital support to a desperate Taliban regime.

snip

An agent of Saddam’s intelligence service was present to transcribe the meetings in Arabic. His spy tradecraft was a little sloppy at times and perhaps he never considered that his records would someday lead to a revealing look at Saddam’s ties to international Islamic jihad. This man, whose name is believed to be Khaled Abd El Majid, acted as a liaison between Saddam’s government and its contacts with influence with organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He moved between Iraq and Pakistan as evidenced by entries in a notebook he kept that was bought in Pakistan. He coordinated meetings between the Saddam regime and Islamic terrorists.

From another section in Both in One Trench:

The IIS Director described the relationship between the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in Afghanistan by stating “We already believe that there are no points of disagreement between us and the Taliban because we are both in one trench facing the world’s oppression.”

OBL's al Qaeda, in the meantime, had moved it's headquarters from the Sudan to Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban in 1996. So as of the Nov 1999 meeting with Omar's Defense Minister, Saddam was agreeing to aid the Taliban... who was already playing host to OBL's al Qaeda network. One of those "indirect" ties to al Qaeda.


PLUS THOSE PESKY DIRECT TIES TO AL QAEDA...

Were it not enough for Saddam to be helping the Taliban, and in triangulation, al Qaeda, another truth emerges from this report. Again for the history challenged: Section II, State Relations with Terror Groups reprtings Extract 10 on pg 13-15 in the report (pg 33-35 of the PDF). It is here we find detailed evidence of Islamic jihad groups Saddam's regime was supporting, in a memo dated March of 1993.

Of these groups, the most notable mentioned was Egyptian Islamic Jihad (aka Islamic Jihad Organization). Ring a bell? Well it should. Zawahiri led the EIJ from 1993,and orchestrated the merger with what we know as today's al Qaeda in 1998... then issuing the World Islamic Front Statement of 1998.

This is, contrary to the media headlines, a very direct link to al Qaeda. Saddam is documented in this report as dealing with Zawahiri since his EIJ leadership. Are we to assume that when Zawahiri changed the name of the movement, Saddam magically ostracized him, finding him to be of no further value?

The report addresses this morphing of the players and their group names over time as well. From pg 17 (PDF pg 37):

One other memorandum (Extract 12) bears consideration. Drafted
in Saddam's office, it refers to an agreement with Islamic terrorists to conduct operations against the Egyptian regime during the first Gulf War (1991) and for continued financial support for the terrorists after hostilities ended.

Mata Musing: A memo addressed to Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad Organization is then reprinted.

The last sentence (in italics referring to the agreement with Islamist terrorists) deserves special attention: it refers to a top-secret order for Saddam's intelligence services to maintain contact with any movement in Arab countries. While it is not surprising that Saddam, one of the last of the Middle East's revolutionary nationalists, would endeavor to support revolutionary groups, it is important to recognize that many of these nationalist groups changed in the late 1990s. Saddam viewed these groups through the eyes of a pan-Arab revolutionary, while the leaders of the growing Islamist movements viewed them as potential affiliates for their Jihad. In other words, two movements, one pan-Arab and the other pan-Islamic, were seeking and developing supporters from the same demographic pool.


Captured documents reveal that later IIS activities went beyond just maintaining contact. For example, at the time this memorandum was written 39, the Iraqi GMID was training Sudanese fighters inside Iraq. The details appear in a separate GMID report40 (21 ovember 2001) about the reorganization or reconstruction of a training camp in the Sudan. This memorandum states that Iraq would send one administrative officer to establish and oversee the camp and that the following equipment would be provided initially: (snip)

Yes folks. Not only does this report document that Iraq was training Arab non-Iraqi jihad fighters in Iraq, but was specifically training some Sudanese fighters. It's also a bit more of a troubling coincidence that Saddam:

In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up operations inside Somalia. The overlap between bin Laden's and Saddam's interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

from pg 18 of the Pentagon report/pg 37 of the PDF

And who, pray tell, in 1993 was headquartered in Sudan? That would be al Qaeda's previous address - from 1991 to 1996. Could it be that Saddam's terrorist training camps were training OBL's Sudanese fighters?

Coincidence in timing? I think not. In fact, it begs to be asked, did Saddam finance and/or have involvement with Clinton's infamous Somalian "Black Hawk Down" operation? It is well known that the local fighters, who attacked US troops, were armed and trained by OBL.

This Pentagon Report, contrary to the BS headlines splashed in your faces, validates even further all that I've already read in Robison's "Both in One Trench". That Saddam did, in fact, have ties to al Qaeda. Ties thru the Taliban, and ties thru Zawahiri as not only the Egyptian Islamic Jihad but also as his new status as an al Qaeda member. As well as ties to any other jihad movement that suited his needs.

Do not be fooled, people. This is an important election year. And the headlines are nothing but BS propaganda by an agenda driven media. Their misinterpretation and false claims are easily debunked with the actual reading of the report.