Yin & Yang over fate of Iraq

The Iraqi Foreign Minister continues to warn the US Congress about the dangers of a quick withdrawal of American troops, and Congress continues to turn a deaf ear... focusing instead on 2008 election campaigns.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's foreign minister warned on Monday that a quick American military withdrawal from the country could lead to civil war and the collapse of the government, as pressure on the Bush administration for a pullout grows.

snip

Zebari said earlier that Iraqis "understand the huge pressure that will increase more and more in the United States" ahead of the progress report by the U.S. ambassador and top commander in Iraq.

"We have held discussion with members of Congress and explained to them the dangers of a quick pull out (from Iraq) and leaving a security vacuum," Zebari said. "The dangers could be a civil war, dividing the country, regional wars and the collapse of the state.

"In our estimations, until Iraqi forces are ready, there is a responsibility on the United States to stand with the (government) as the forces are being built," he said.

Reason and a concept of future catastrophic events should Iraq fall to political Islam radicals are not the US Congressional forte. Instead, more are jumping ship on support for a free Iraq.

Four more Republican senators have recently declared that they can no longer support Mr. Bush’s strategy, including senior lawmakers who until now had expressed their doubts only privately. As a result, some aides are now telling Mr. Bush that if he wants to forestall more defections, it would be wiser to announce plans for a far more narrowly defined mission for American troops that would allow for a staged pullback, a strategy that he rejected in December as a prescription for defeat when it was proposed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

What is most notable about the most four recent defectors is that each and every one of them is up for 2008 re'election... Not surprising they're singing a different tune as their career politician desires are on the line.

That aside, it's always amazing to me that everyone pulls out their favorite excerpt from the oh-so-hallowed ISG report. And I will do the same... pulling out the excerpt that everyone just loves to ignore. The one that suggests a troop surge with the mission that is reflective of just what is going on now. From my January 2007 posting on the ISG and Congress...

Executive Summary, pg xvi (repeated pg 71, (Military and Security Forces)

"The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and to help facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.

Read further on pg 71 and you'll find the suggested number in hovering around 20,000. Oh my... doing what the ISG suggests. How out of line is that?

And where is the press and Congress on this recommendation when they so reverently evoke the ISG report as the end all be all for strategy? Evidently mum on all. Either reading is a lost art for media and Congress, or the ISG recommendation for doing exactly what is being done is just another "inconvenient truth".

Quick Observations of news & BS

CO Dem Sen. Ken Salazar gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the BS doublespeak of the "new Congress in town".

On one hand, he breaks party lines by announcing Congress should not be cutting off troop funding. In the next breath, he's criticizing Bush for worsening "the extreme partisan divide" on Iraq by questioning Democrats' support for the troops.

I see... the Dems whine that they shouldn't be criticized for questioning the Prez, but don't think they themselves should be questioned for their behavior. Huh?

*************************************

Salazar also complains the WH and Congress have largely ignored the ISG Report's 79 recommendations.

Has Salazar read these recommendations? Most that are within the US's power to implement have been addressed. However the bulk of them require actions from other countries - from forming an "international support group" of countries that want no part of such to Iraqi's changing their governments structure. And how exactly can the US can force other countries to behave responsibly?

At least 5 or 6 of these have to do with advancing the Israel/Palestinian peace process. Again, if the players don't want to play the game, there is little we can do, as history has shown. But of course, the ISG even suggests what Israel should give up in land. How nice of them...

For those that require a reconstruction of the Iraqi govt departments themselves, I have this to say. That is something that can only be US suggestions and carried out by a willing Iraqi parliament so that it is an Iraqi form of democracy, and not a US creation. The US cannot dictate to Iraq how to form their government and expect it to stand. It is their make it or break it quest.

However there are a vast number of the ISG recommendations that are indeed implemented. "Largely ignored" is not an accurate representation.

In fact, one of the recommendations that HAS been implemented is the subject of all the latest fooferah... the "surge". That would be RECOMMENDATION 39, folks... parts reprinted below.

RECOMMENDATION 39: The United States should provide financial and technical support and establish a single office in Iraq to coordinate assistance to the Iraqi government and its expert advisors to aid a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate militia members.

3. Security and Military Forces

snip

Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.”

We could, however, support a short term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.

We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake. We believe that our recommended actions will give the Iraqi Army the support it needs to have a reasonable chance to take responsibility for Iraq’s security. Given the ongoing deterioration in the security situation, it is urgent to move as quickly as possible to have that security role taken over by Iraqi security forces.

Me thinks the Dem's railing against the surge is much ado about nothing, and was a suggestion put forth by their "god", the ISG.

*************************************

THE ROSIE FOOFERAH

Rosie runs off at the mouth, revealing just who and what she is. That is her American right, it's the network's right to collect on the increased ratings. Have no problems with that. I just don't watch.

But why is everyone yelling at Rosie? The bigger question is, why is she the only one talking? The "respected" journalist, Barbara Walters, sits back, allowing such idiocies and conspiracy theories to be presented without debate of facts?

"The View" should be changed to "Rosie's View, and only Rosie's View". And Ms. Walters, with her background, should be ashamed of herself to allow Rosie's diatribes to be the only voice of "The View". My suggestion is the venom should be turned on Walters for her silence.

**************************************

Cindy Sheehan has a couple of nonsensical bits. The first is the not-so-surprising "we can't depend on the Democrats" comment. Have to say, it's first time I've ever agreed with Sheehan on anthing - altho not for the same reasons.

Cindy feels "betrayed", saying "They got there and they betrayed the grass roots that put them back there". I think if Ms. Sheehan will stop her protest travels long enough to read details on the last election, she will find it was far more moderate Dems who made the ticket, and the not Pelosi-Murtha extremists in the new seats. She will also find that even the moderate Dems win was a sliver of a majority... hardly a runaway issue, as she proclaims.

Then, of course, there's the obvious indicator in Connecticut, where voters had their choice between an outspoken, anti-war Dem, or the new Independent out-of-favor Lieberman. Needless to say, with Lieberman's landslide victory, Sheehan can't count on Connecticut to stand with her.

The second Sheehan faux pas is her invocation of Christ's resurrection in her seasonal 15 min of fame spot.

"Our message is: Today is Good Friday, when Jesus Christ was killed by the Roman Empire. He rose again on Sunday, came back to life. But our loved ones won't be coming home" from Iraq, she told reporters.

Apparently Ms. Sheehan is unaware that Christ rose on the third day and soon thereafter ascended into heaven. He didn't hang around to raise a family, unless you believe the Da Vinci version. DOH! Perhaps that's it!

However, if she chooses to indulge in Christian-speak, and refer to Scripture to make her point, then she should also continue with the Christian belief that the fallen soldiers are also with Christ in Heaven. And that's a far superior spot than here on earth. Thereby her Good Friday statement is nothing short of ludicrous exploitation.

AP recounts ties between Iran & Iraq militia

Today's AP article, Shiite Militia May Be Disintegrating by HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA is filled with accounts of Iran-Iraq ties, told by various Mahdi Army commanders and Iranian dissident groups.

Among the topics: Sadr unable to reenter Iraq because of US check points; offers of stipend to breakaway militia members; funding, arming and training by Iranian Quds; masquerading under cover as a relief agency.... lots to read here.

Nothing that, in reality surprises me. However this may come as a big surprise to the ISG authors who believe Iran does not benefit from chaos in Iraq, and the fools in Congress who believe we can deal with terrorists by diplomatic talk. .

Iraqi-US surge, ISG Report, Congress & "benchmarks"

Joint US-Iraqi forces detain deputy health minister (Roundup)

Baghdad - Joint US-Iraqi forces seized Deputy Health Minister Hazem al-Zamli at the ministry on Thursday in a politically- charged raid aimed at terrorists and militias operating in Baghdad.

The Health Ministry is regarded as a haven for Shiite militias, with both al-Zamli and his boss, Health Minister Ali al-Shemari, members of the movement of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

In a statement, the US military alleged that al-Zamli was involved in the murder of seven ministry officials.

It also said he had taken bribe money and funnelled millions of dollars to Sadr's militias, known as the Mahdi army, which is suspected of having entered state clinics and killed Sunni patients and their relatives and intimidated doctors.

Al-Shemari reacted to the raid and seizure of his deputy by demanding his immediate release.

'Al-Zamli was detained in an uncivilized way,' he charged.

snip - continue reading at link above

Now let's refer to the ISG Report. And for those of you who don't have the book, here's a link to the ISG Report online, and searchable via PDF.

Pg 14 of this PDF version addresses not only the Health Ministry, but also the Agricultural and Transportation Ministries. All with loyalties to, and a veritable bank and employment agency of, the radical Shiite cleric, al-Sadr.

Facilities Protection Services
The Facilities Protection Service poses additional problems. Each Iraqi ministry has an armed unit, ostensibly to guard the ministry’s infrastructure. All together, these units total roughly 145,000 uniformed Iraqis under arms. However, these units have questionable loyalties and capabilities. In the ministries of Health, Agriculture, and Transportation controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr the Facilities Protection Service is a source of funding and jobs for the Mahdi Army. One senior U.S. official described the Facilities Protection Service as “incompetent, dysfunctional, or subversive.” Several Iraqis simply referred to them as militias. The Iraqi government has begun to bring the Facilities Protection Service under the control of the Interior Ministry. The intention is to identify and register Facilities Protection personnel, standardize their treatment, and provide some training. Though the approach is reasonable, this effort may exceed the current capability of the Interior Ministry.

To point out the obvious, the Iraqi gov't is indeed doing what they promised. And that is going after Shia militias as well as Sunni, the foreign fighters as well, and their own internal corruption.

Burning question here... is Congress still so wrapped up in their self-serving word games and non-binding BS to prevent them from keeping abreast of the latest news and efforts in Iraq? Point being, the Iraqis are - without pointless Congressional "resolutions" mandating such - working on their own benchmarks and goals to hold together a unified gov't.

Attn: Congress... are you still ready to abandon Iraq so quickly merely to cater to your own popularity poll numbers? Are you interested in daily results in Baghdad? Or just meaningless actions that may help your re-election status?

While we're dicussing the extreme displeasure of "the surge" by Congress, let's go to the following paragraphs in the ISG Report - Operation Together Forward II that commenced in August of 2006, and the ISG's comments on it's lack of success... and WHY. It's on page 15 of this online version.

Operation Together Forward II

In a major effort to quell the violence in Iraq, U.S. military forces joined with Iraqi forces to establish security in Baghdad with an operation called “Operation Together Forward
II,” which began in August 2006. Under Operation Together Forward II, U.S. forces are
working with members of the Iraqi Army and police to “clear, hold, and build” in
Baghdad, moving neighborhood by neighborhood. There are roughly 15,000 U.S. troops
in Baghdad.

This operation—and the security of Baghdad—is crucial to security in Iraq more
generally. A capital city of more than 6 million, Baghdad contains some 25 percent of the country’s population. It is the largest Sunni and Shia city in Iraq. It has high
concentrations of both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. Both Iraqi and American
leaders told us that as Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq.

The results of Operation Together Forward II are disheartening. Violence in
Baghdad—already at high levels—jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006. U.S. forces continue to suffer high casualties. Perpetrators of violence leave neighborhoods in advance of security sweeps, only to filter back later. Iraqi police have been unable or unwilling to stop such infiltration and continuing violence. The Iraqi Army has provided only two out of the six battalions that it promised in August would join American forces in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has rejected sustained security operations in Sadr City.

Security efforts will fail unless the Iraqis have both the capability to hold areas that have been cleared and the will to clear neighborhoods that are home to Shiite militias. U.S. forces can “clear” any neighborhood, but there are neither enough U.S. troops present nor enough support from Iraqi security forces to “hold” neighborhoods so cleared. The same holds true for the rest of Iraq. Because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Iraqi military forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the sectarian violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end.

The emphasis (mine), most specifically the underlined "will to clear neighborhoods" is an issue the anti's in Congress have been focused on. If the attitude that "they aren't doing enough" can be construed as true in the past, one can examine this report today, and the activities since January of 2007, as a demonstration of a new will to do what it takes to help this new gov't unify and succeed. And that includes going after al-Sadr.

Also (emphasized) in the paragraph - not enough troops to help Iraqis clear and hold. Ringing any bells for the proposed/implemented "surge"? Is not the ISG Report actually pointing out exactly the problem, and is not the "surge" an attempt to correct that problem? What is it about Congress that they can say, with a straight face, that the WH admin is not paying attention to the ISG Report? Is lying and denying that embedded in their daily rhetoric?

Based on the recent efforts of the Iraqi gov't since January, the US Congress should table their worthless profiling about resolutions and start lending some "atta boys" to the Iraqis for rising to the challenge.... despite the high probability of death.

Warning! Bozos and Liars in Power!

MATA MUSING: Been awhile, I see. My last post was in December. Mind you, it's not that I haven't been paying attention to the surrounding madness the pols have wrought since the election. I've just been holding my own in my small sphere of living with personal stuff. So the thoughts (and ire) have piled up, and "I'm baaaaack" to unload.

Let me say first that I must be some of the very few citizens to have read The Iraq Study Group Report. Read it on the plane on an east-west, Sea2Sea flight just a week ago. Have to say, there's alot of humour in there... can we say doublespeak? i.e.

Executive Summary, pg xvi (repeated pg 71, Military and Security Forces)

"The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and to help facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.

Uh... isn't this indeed what the admin is now attempting to do? In fact, on pg 71, it even states "such a mission could involve 10,000 to 20,000 American troops instead of the 3000 to 4000 now in this role.". Hummmm.... does that number ring a bell with anyone?

And oh, BTW, "consultants" on this ISG report include Ms. Pelosi herself, who now publicly cries she wasn't consulted on the new surge strategy.

Huh? How quickly she forgets in her excitement of assuming power.

Other guffaws found in the book are the much touted "must do diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria" BS. Yet plainly stated in the ISG report is that this talk of diplomacy between the chasm of ideology...

... must include direct talks with, by and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel's right to exist), and Syria.

Let's see... Israel's right to exist. That obviously leaves out Iran and Syria.

Another joke... Congress refuses to help supply the Iraqi Army and police with weapons, stating instead they much purchase thru a military program. Tough to do when the fledgling gov't doesn't even have a banking system. And even tougher for street cops and Iraqi infantry to curb violence... nae, even defend their own arses... without working weapons and ammo. Talk about setting them up to fail!

Add to that, Congress whines that our own military equipment (tanks, etal) are wearing out quickly with the environment. Yet read on further, and they state they are more than willing to leave this worn out junk for the Iraqi's to use as our troops redeploy/bolt/cut and run. I'm sure the Iraqi's will be forever grateful to inherit our junk for their own use. What a slap.

This little ditty is an eye opener. Especially in light of the Senate Foreign Relations non-binding "finger shaking" at Bush INRE the troops surge. Biden, Levin, Pelosi... all listed as consulants on the ISG report... are aware that the report suggested exactly what's being done. Yet they are correct in assuming that the average voter doesn't read and will believe whatever lies pass their lips on the latest MSM sound byte news.

Bunk.

And 'nother thing... this "surge" has been going on since December. One need only scan thru Iraq The Model blogspot's posts beginning Jan 10th... well ahead of the "surge" announcement.

And if James Lewis at America Thinker is correct in his information, this surge and Iraqi clean up campaign is yielding results early on.

While the MSM and Democrats are too busy gazing at their navels to figure out the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, things are moving very fast in Iraq. The famous "surge" started in December, a month before it was announced in public, and it is having concrete results. A battle has taken place in Baghdad's infamous Haifa Street, which used to be bandit territory. The challenge is to hold that territory.

snip

The most significant new development is the arrest in Iraq of the operational director of Ahmadinejad's storm trooper (Al Quds) brigade.


If the MSM were doing its job, this would be big headline news. First, the Al Quds brigade is Ahmadinejad's own unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, which he helped grow in order to conduct terrorist operations abroad, in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and even Mecca.


They are the SS stormtroopers of the Islamic revolution.


The idea that a top officer of the Quds brigade would be caught with his pants down in Iraq is simply astonishing. It tears the veil from all the Iranian denials of direct involvement in arming and funding Iraqi death squads.

What's this? Ahmadinejad's pet warriors in Iraq? How can that *be*? Flashback to the ISG language INRE cajoling Iran to help with Iraq, and it's absurd claim on pg 51 that...

Some of the possible incentives to Iran, Syria, or both include:

1: An Iraq that does not disintegrate and destablize its neighbors and the region

Gosh darn... ISG authors believe Iran does not benefit from a failed or chaotic Iraq. If that were true, why are they in there, actively (and obviously ineffectively) muddying the waters? Fact is, they'd like nothing more to annex Iraq's oil and fresh water supply as their own. And that would not be possible with a standing, elected and successful democratic Iraqi gov't.

Doublespeak... I repeat... doublespeak. What bozo can read the ISG, and not fall out of their chair laughing with it's lofty and idyllic notions? Can think tank elites truly be this stupid??

I've come to the conclusion that I should be shopping for a hybrid soon. Here's my thoughts, worthless as they may be received. I suspect our new do-nothing, pacifist Congress will "stay the course" by funding the existing troops, and refuse to fund the surge. This will result in a slow, cancerous death/defeat as they did with Vietnam. They have neither the balls to truly get them out, and they won't allow them to win. And for that, I find them the lowest of the low.

Thus, when Iraq cannot stand up to the thugs seeking to overthrow an elected gov't, and the country (and it's oil supplies) falls into the hands of the sundry radical groups (they're all alike) battling for control, the US will pay dearly in oil prices. So I think I'll get that hybrid now, while the getting is good! LOL

Then, of course, there's the "baby killer" Kerry, backing out of the Presidential mob in order to stay in the Senate and help end the war. I guess he still hasn't figured out that there's only one Commander in Chief yet. And with his numbers, it could be questionable if he even stays in the Senate.

BTW, doesn't anyone remember that it was a Dem President who got us into Vietnam, a Dem President who escalated it, and finally a Rep President who commenced getting us out? All, of course, thanks to a Congress who made sure to financially tie our troops hands behind their back, making it impossible to win... just as they are planning on doing now. I guess, in that aspect, Iraq is rather like Vietnam.

Personally, my fave column on the State of the Union speech was by Lori Byrd at the Examiner, who aptly pointed out that the Dems really had a hard time applauding any notion of attempting victory in Iraq.

During his speech, President Bush spoke with conviction about the importance of achieving victory in Iraq:

“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.”

The majority party’s response to that statement, and others, made more of an impression on me than anything the president said. In response to his call to “turn events toward victory,” the majority of congressional Democrats sat on their hands.

President Bush went on to speak of the consequences of failure in Iraq: “Nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East … to succeed in Iraq … and to spare the American people from this danger.”

But most congressional Democrats’, led by their new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, remained seated and did not applaud.

Body language often says much more than any words. Even my 6-year-old daughter can immediately detect which of the apologies her older sister is occasionally ordered to make to her are sincere — and which are not. I am not an expert in body language, but I can identify basic signs such as smiles, frowns and applause. During the State of the Union speech, it appeared to me that almost every time the president made a reference to victory in Iraq, the majority of congressional Democrats had a visible negative response.

snip

Bryan Preston, who recently returned from Iraq where he reported as an embed, also reacted to congressional Democrats’ response to the president’s speech: “Still, it’s revealing that the Democrats stand up when the president mentions Darfur, where there are no U.S. troops and won’t be any U.S. troops — but sit on their hands when he mentions Iraq, where there are U.S. troops and where there will be U.S. troops fighting hard for a while to come. What possesses a group of people to take Sudan more seriously than Iraq … to rank the importance of international crises in an inverse relationship to those crises‚ effect on U.S. national security?”

Preston went on to ask congressional Democrats “why is it that many of them seem to believe the U.S. is capable of addressing the conflict and genocide in Darfur, yet is not considered capable of achieving victory in Iraq?”

Why indeed, Bryan. Because it's easy to feign concern, but very difficult to make the sacrifices necessary to aid those in dire straits. And evidently, the pacifist Congress prefers to wring their hands over Darfur and ignore the plight of struggling Iraqis... a place where we really can do some good.



And another thing... I'm tired of hearing the flap about the Dakota Fanning movie. Were it my daughter, I'd never let her take the part. Nor take her to see the movie. But it isn't my daughter, and Hollywood has never demonstrated taste before. Why start now? However Brook Shields didn't degenerate into a massively screwed up human after acting in Pretty Baby. Get a grip, folks. Worry about your own kids, and let the free market take care of the rest.

And speaking of Hollywood "much ado about nothing" flap, what's all this bru'ha'ha of the Grey's Anatomy star, Isaiah Washington, having to grovel and do penance over using the word faggot at the Oscars? Receiving counseling or entering rehab?? For what? A poor choice of words? Here I thought the libs were all for free speech... guess not.

Okay... I've aired enuf for now. Almost feel better... until I turn on the evening talking heads. You all take care. And you'd better check into those hybrids, I'm tellin' ya!