Serving the People of Iraq

Why Are We Meddling in Iraq Elections?

2010-11-15T10:06:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago, Barack Obama tried to dictate part of the outcome of the Iraqi elections. That sounds a bit like something George Bush would have done. Fortunately, the Iraqis told him to go fly a kite.

The Washington Times reports that:

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, one of America's closest allies in the country, has rebuffed the personal request of President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to relinquish his post as Iraqis form a new government in Baghdad.

Last Saturday, Mr. Obama phoned Mr. Talabani and asked him to give up the seat he has held since 2005 so that Mr. Allawi could be Iraq's president, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials familiar with the diplomacy. Mr. Obama on Saturday also urged the president of the Kurdistan region, Massoud Barzani, to accept Mr. Allawi in the role of the presidency.

Why can't we leave them alone? It probably has something to do with the fact that we can't leave Iran alone either.

Since late summer, U.S. officials had been trying to get Mr. al-Maliki and Mr. Allawi to share power in the government because neither man's party won the majority of votes. But Mr. al-Maliki's Rule of Law party ultimately formed an alliance with the Kurds and another Shiite bloc with ties to Iran known as the Iraqi National Alliance.

Did you really think that US foreign policy would change very much when Obama replaced Bush as president? Neither did I.

Let's let Iraqis govern Iraq and stop thinking of them as incapable of taking care of themselves. This American Superpower Superiority Complex has got to go.

The Problem With Going Someplace You Should Have Never Gone

2010-07-24T19:25:00.002-06:00

If only more Americans knew their American history and current affairs. They would have screamed bloody murder when George W Bush announced his plans to send the US military to Iraq. We should have never gone there. Now the Obama Adminisration, with the full complicity of Congress, plans for us to never leave.

Although the "official" United States military is supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of next year, it doesn't mean that "the" United States military will be out of Iraq anytime soon. It will be a private army, which will likely cost taxpayers a lot more money per "soldier".

Stars and Stripes report that:

In little more than a year, State Department contractors in Iraq could be driving armored vehicles, flying aircraft, operating surveillance systems, even retrieving casualties if there are violent incidents and disposing of unexploded ordnance.
Under the terms of a 2008 status of forces agreement, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, but they’ll leave behind a sizable American civilian presence, including the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, and five consulate-like "Enduring Presence Posts" in the Iraqi hinterlands.

Did you hear about this turn of events? Me neither:

With public attention riveted on the war in Afghanistan, the coming transition of the U.S. mission in Iraq has gotten relatively little notice by the news media.

The United States is now, more and more, supporting a private, mercenary Army, whose members make a hell of a lot more money than I did when I was in Iraq.

The arrangement is "one more step in the blurring of the lines between military activities and State Department or diplomatic activities..."

The State Department is requesting that the Defense Department turn over to them the war wagons and materiel that they need to take care of the job.

Sounds like it's time to buy stock in Blackwater.

The Surge Worked? Then Why Are Candidates Being Banned From Elections?

2010-01-18T12:07:00.002-07:00

Many Americans, not having to deal with the mayhem that will likely ensue the departure of the American military from Iraq, are too quick to say, "The surge worked." We have no idea whether it will have worked until we leave. Current signs indicate that not much has changed in Iraq. Not only may the surge not have worked, but it bears wondering whether Iraq would have been in a much better situation had the United States not been so ensconced in the last seven years of its history.

First Paul Bremer made the mistake of disbanding the Iraqi army and banning from government employment anyone who had ever belonged to the Baath party. Having "learned well" from its American overlords, the party of Nuri al-Maliki recently used the same rationale for removing approximately 500 candidates from the ballots for the upcoming March election.

Iraqi officials have done little to clarify who, exactly, has been disqualified from running for Parliament in March because of ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. ...it remained unclear how many candidates out of more than 6,000 who have registered would be excluded — and which ones had been [removed].

On Thursday, Iraq’s election commission announced that 499 were disqualified, but it postponed the publication of a list on Sunday, saying that still more names would be added Monday.

Far from dissipating, the political turmoil caused by the accountability commission only worsened over the weekend.

A government is certainly free to establish qualifications that candidates must possess before they can seek elective office, but the lack of transparency so close to the election makes it appear that the decisions on whom to disqualify are extremely arbitrary. And it is certainly unhealthy for the Iraq Prime Minister to threaten anyone who disagrees with the process:

Maliki said in a statement that the commission's rulings must be respected "without exception" and cautioned against "the politicization" of a process intended to weed out former supporters of the outlawed Baath Party, which ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Unrest has increased markedly since the decision.

The disqualification of so many candidates threatened to undermine a national election that has widely been cast as another test of Iraq’s nascent democracy. According to many lawmakers and experts, Iraq appears to be failing, raising fears of violence rather than political reconciliation as American troops steadily withdraw, nearly seven years after the American-led invasion that toppled Mr. Hussein.

Ironically, after having established what it terms "democracy" in Iraq, the United States, along with the United Nations, has weighed in against the disqualifications, a move that is seen as far from friendly by the Iraqis.

In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Lami’s commission accused the United Nations of interfering in Iraq. The United Nations, with the United States, has lobbied against the disqualifications.

Could it have been this bad still if America had just minded its own business in the first place? I'm afraid that when the history books are updated in a decade or so, we'll find that the surge only worked in regards to causing greater chaos in Iraq than existed before.

Yes, Iraqis Remember 9/11

2009-09-11T14:03:00.000-06:00

Iraqis mourned with Americans on September 11, 2001. It wasn't long, however, before their tyrannical ruler was targeted as a possessor of weapons of mass destruction along with the intent to use them on America. When it was later proven beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein never had either such payload or such intent, it was too late for the Iraqi people. During our mid-stream mission change of bringing them "democracy", we have brought far more death, dismemberment, and destruction than liberty. Yes, Iraqis remember 9/11. It is still tearing their country apart.

When I got to Kuwait in June of 2005, I was surprised that all of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti workers on my transition base couldn't understand very much of my limited Arabic speaking ability. It turns out they were Indians, Pakistanis, Philippinos, etc.

When I got to my combat base in Iraq, the only three Iraqis workers I ever met there were translators who went with the brigade and battalion commanders, or with combat patrols as necessary. The rest of the workers were Indians, Pakistanis, Phillipinos, etc.

It was not until 2 weeks ago, after having been home from Iraq for more than three years, that I discovered that this wasn't just the norm on military bases in Iraq. Not only did we occupy their country on false pretenses, disband their military, and fire all of their government employees, we also (except in rare circumstances) didn't provide reconstruction jobs to any of the Iraqi people whose country we were occupying.

No wonder they hate us.

In her book, "The Shock Doctrine", Naomi Klein details what additional shock and awe U.S. uber-fuhrer Paul Bremer dispensed once the aerial bombardment was complete.

Before the invasion, Iraq's economy had been anchored by its national oil company and by two hundred state owned companies. The month after he arrived in his new job, Bremer announced that the two hundred firms would be privatized immediately. Bremer enacted a radical set of laws [one of which] allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets...

The Shock Doctrine, p. 436

Iraqi advisers warned in advance that these actions would be seen as acts of war. You probably already know at least that much of the history that happened next.

But it gets worse.

Of the billions of dollars sent by the Bush Administration designated as reconstruction money--at least not the significant portion that was stolen outright by American contractors--almost none of it went toward contracts with Iraqi construction companies or to pay Iraqi workers, due to the fact that very few were allowed to participate. Klein says:

Even Iraqis' low-wage labor wasn't required for the assembly process because the major U.S. contractors...preferred to import foreign workers whom they felt confident they could control. Once again Iraqis were cast in the role of awed spectators...

Iraq once had one of the most sophisticated industrial economies in the region; now its largest firms couldn't even get a subsubsubcontract in their own country's reconstruction.

...cement factories were perfectly positioned both to supply the reconstruction effort with building materials and to put tens of thousands of Iraqis to work. The factories received nothing--no contracts, no generators, no help. American companies preferred to import their cement, like their workforce, from abroad, at up to ten times the price.

The Shock Doctrine, pp. 439, 441-442

Despite the ignominy of American occupation, sectarian violence and violence against the military was almost unknown for at least the first year that we were there. Did you ever wonder where all of the insurgents came from? Well, now you know. Klein says:

In fact, all the forces tearing Iraq apart today--rampant corruption, ferocious sectarianism, the surge in religious fundamentalism, and the tyranny of death squads--escalated in lockstep with the implementation of Bush's anti-Marshall plan. After the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq badly needed and deserved to be repaired and reunited, a process that could only have been led by Iraqis. Instead, at that moment, the country was transformed into a cutthroat capitalist laboratory--a system that pitted individuals and communities against each other... It was a very capitalist disaster, a nightmare of unfettered greed unleashed in the wake of war.

The Shock Doctrine, 443-444

Why can't we just leave these people alone? Are they better off now than they were under Saddam? A friend of mine asked me today if we were going to leave Iraq in a bigger mess than we found it. Yes, it seems like we will.

How much longer are Americans going to believe the Bush Administration lie that our overarching goal was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people?

The Iraqis wish that 9/11 had never happened--but for very different reasons than most Americans do.

"Good News is No News", but Fallujah Holds Bicycle Race Anyway

2007-12-05T21:59:00.000-07:00

It's a pretty good sign that things are going much better in Fallujah if they were able to hold a bike race there recently.

No news is good news, they say. Well, actually in America, when it has to do with Iraq, good news is no news. As the surge has helped to dramatically improve the lot of Iraqis all across the country, the American media has grown not-so-strangely-for-them more silent about the topic of Iraq.

Meanwhile, Fallujah feels comfortable enough--now that al Qaeda is on its heels--to hold a bike race.

December 3, 2007 -- About 150 students wearing colorful T-shirts competed in a bicycle race last week in Fallujah, an unimaginable event a year ago in what was once an al Qaeda hotbed and one of Iraq's most dangerous cities.

The city's police chief fired the starting shot to set the students from 15 intermediate and secondary schools off on the 5-kilometer race across the town, 30 miles west of Baghdad.

Scores of families lined the streets to watch the race and milled around the riders to congratulate them after the race.

"This proves that the security situation in Fallujah is very good," said Col. Faisel Ismael, head of the city's police.

"This is the beginning of good things in Fallujah."

Haitham Abdul-Razek raised his arms in the air as he crossed the finish line to win a $1,135 cash prize and a trophy.

"Bring the trophy! Bring it," some students chanted after the race, echoing a popular song among Iraqis after their national soccer team won the Asian Cup this year.

"Even though I did not win, I am happy that Fallujah's name was held up high today," said 17-year- old Marwan Khoedeiri, adding that he was not scared to compete, because of the security provided by police and army.

God bless the people of Fallujah and their fellow Iraqis. May they continue to enjoy ever increasing peace and prosperity.

Murtha (Graciously?) Admits that the Surge is Working

2007-12-01T14:47:00.000-07:00

It was John Murtha's comments over the last couple of years that have caused a great deal of problems for the US military in Iraq. Now that he admits that the surge is working, should he demand our respect? No, but for once he is right.

John Murtha recently went to Baghdad. He had a change of opinion. He now believes the surge is working. I think we would have been better off long ago if he had kept his mouth shut, but now that he is talking, it's good that he's admitting the truth. But he's still suggesting that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only deserve $50 billion in 2008.

Investor's Business Daily calls it Murtha's "Road to Baghdad" conversion. I wouldn't go that far.

Beyond the embarrassing questions now sure to be asked of Pelosi about Murtha's unexpected flip-flop, and Democrats' crass unreasonableness toward a people who risk their lives to exercise the voting rights we take for granted, there's something bigger for Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats running for president to think about:

Murtha, like so many other high-ranking Democrats in the House and Senate, and those seeking the White House, was "absolutely convinced" that surrender was the only answer in Iraq.

Yes, the surge is working. Deaths are way down. Attacks are way down. Success is starting to bear fruit. But I don't think Murtha's admission that the surge is working is a gracious statement. I'm still waiting to see what else is up his sleeve.

Help! Iraq is Improving. We Need More Sabotage!

2007-10-30T21:15:00.000-06:00

Despite what one may think about George W. Bush getting into the Iraq war mess, one must concede that his objectives are noble. The American military has only ever been in Iraq until such time as the Iraqis are ready for us to leave. We might have already been home had it not been for several half-witted stunts by the Democrats in congress.

The US Military today turned security over to the Iraqis in Karbala, only 40 miles south of my old stomping grounds, making that the eighth of eighteen provinces that now provide indigenous security. That's cool. We're making progress.

Although it's too early to be sure if it's a trend, the number of American military deaths is the lowest in two years. That's cool. We're making progress.

Despite the death of Abu Risha last month, Ramadi is trending toward peace. A recent parade was held in honor of Abu Risha. Troop and civilian deaths are way down. That's cool. We're making progress.

Which has me confused. Why aren't the Democrats in full overdrive--as they usually are at junctures such as this--trying to sabotage the effort? Careful...maybe they are...

My observation, albeit unscientific, while I was in Iraq was this: something goes good, like an election, and then the American media finds something negative to say about George W. Bush, and then, boom! Roadside bomb, car bomb, and rocket attacks suddenly increase. (Terrorists have satellite television.) That used to just piss me off.

Then John Murtha came along and made all sorts of brazen and baseless allegations, and the whole country went to crap. We're just recovering. That really sucked, and it still does.

I guess a few days ago, the Democrats did attempt a bit of sabotage, but it didn't seem to work. A recently tabled resolution before congress to censure Turkey for genocide that occurred nearly a century ago makes no sense unless one realizes its geopolitical ramifications.

Having failed miserably to force a US retreat in Iraq, House Democrats and their skittish Republican counterparts have now resorted to asymmetrical political warfare against President Bush, his administration and US military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

About 70% of all supplies supporting current US combat operations flow through Turkey. Its strategic location has made the air base at Incirlik a vital lifeline to the US military. It doesn't take a legal scholar to articulate the implications to Iraq or Afghanistan if Turkey denied access to Incirlik.

I'm all for being finished in Iraq. We should have never been there. But we can't just sabotage every good effort to achieve liberty among the Iraqi people.

I don't think we should rest on our laurels just yet, though. The enemy may still be combining in an attempt to scuttle the liberty process there. Al Qaeda, you think? Heck no! The Democrats in Congress!

US Casualties Down in Iraq

2007-10-16T20:25:00.000-06:00

It's a little early to tell, but it's interesting that US casualties are on pace for the lowest in any month in quite a while.

Cybercast News service is reporting:

Through the afternoon of October 15, the Defense Department reported that 15 U.S. military personal had been killed in Iraq since October 1. Thirteen of these were combat-related, while the other two were not. The most recent Defense-Department-reported death occurred on Oct. 12.

Last year -- during the same period -- 44 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq, all but two in combat-related incidents. That's more than three times the number of combat-related casualties now being reported for the first half of this October.

It sounds like the counter-insurgency tactics employed by General Petraeus are working, and that perhaps the MoveOn.org crowd was a bit premature in saying that he was betraying the US. Hmmm.....

CNSNews adds that

September 2007 marked a 14-month low in reported casualties: 68 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq, a drop in deaths the military credited to the 30,000 "surge" in troops that began in June. Among the 68 U.S. casualties in Iraq in September, 41 were from combat-related incidents.

It seems as well, from what I've been hearing on the radio, that car bombings are down, and the number of casualties from such bombings are down as well.

Sounds almost like a trend...or two.

Passing the Cost of War On To Future Generations

2007-10-02T13:20:00.000-06:00

Democrats in the house are now 'concerned' that the $150 billion cost of the Iraq War will be passed on to future generations. Well, that's one way to look at it...

The Associated Press wrote today that:

Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war on to future generations.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

Since when did "pass[ing] the cost of [anything] on to future generations" stop anybody in Congress, with the exception of a handful of exemplary leaders, such as Ron Paul? We're certainly passing the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on to future generations.

But that's not all. The tax surcharge these congress people are proposing is another experiment in the socialist wealth collection shell game. If you don't make much money, you only pay 2%, but that's okay that we're suckering you poor people, because guess what? The rich SOBs have to pay EVEN MORE!!!

Despite how one may feel about the way we got into Iraq, one of the Constitutional requirements of the federal government is to provide for a defense of the country. Until these loons in the Senate and the House can figure out a way to get us out of this mess, I think there are better ways to pay for the war than a snide tax increase.

How about cutting spending in the myriad areas that they have no constitutional authority over?

Syria Missile Explodes, Followed By Media Blackout

2007-09-19T08:49:00.000-06:00

I didn't do a ton of looking around, but it seems that not too many news outlets are interested in reporting the fact that it is just coming to light that a Syrian missile which exploded at a Syrian military base in May killed dozens of Iranian engineers.

It was reported in May that a missile exploded in a Syrian military site. Today, new facts are surfacing. The major media outlets do not seem to be interested, although they are very interested in analyzing a recent Israeli air strike on a military facility in northern Syria.

The new facts are that dozens of Iranian engineers were killed in the May missile explosion. The blast occurred while engineers were trying to outfit a Scud C missile with mustard gas. AFP reports

The July 26 explosion in Aleppo, northern Syria, was reported at the time. The official Sana news agency said 15 Syrian military personnel were killed and 50 people were injured, most of them slightly from flying glass.

The agency said only that "very explosive products" blew up after fire broke out at the facility and that the blaze was not an act of sabotage.

But in the September 26 edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, Syrian defence sources were quoted as saying the explosion happened during tests to weaponise a Scud C missile with mustard gas, which is banned under international law.

Fuel caught fire in a missile production laboratory and "dispersed chemical agents (including VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent) across the storage facility and outside.

"Other Iranian engineers were seriously injured with chemical burns to exposed body parts not protected by safety overalls," the publication quoted the sources as saying.

Among the dead were "dozens" of Iranian missile weaponisation engineers, it added.

What I Learned About Iraq From Losing a Consultant

2007-09-14T08:40:00.000-06:00

Recently, our computer programming project ran out of budget for external consultants. At what I particularly felt was a very inopportune time to let them go, we let them go. Interestingly, however, I learned a great deal about myself in the process. That is, when I don't have someone to fall back on, I have the ability to rise the occasion.

Since the consultants left, I have become a markedly better programmer. I have come to several solutions that at first appeared to be very small needles in very giant haystacks. The key realization I came to just yesterday was that had my subject matter experts (the consultants) not left, I would have been content to float along in my relative mediocrity.

It is a very imperfect comparison, I know, but I'd like to illustrate my situation as a microcosm of Iraq. America is the subject-matter expert for Iraq--their crutch. As the situation drags on, Iraqis will be more likely to "float along in [their] relative mediocrity". At some point, coming soon to a theater near you, Iraq needs to get rid of its consultants. I guess I'm glad that President Bush announced last night that he intends to draw the American forces down over the next few months to pre-surge levels, although I don't think he did a good job of explaining why.

Lanny Davis, former member of the Clinton Administration, appeared on Greg Allen's the Right Balance this morning. He made a good point. The Democrats have a good point, which I have just spent the last couple of paragraphs essentially agreeing with. They are not, however, articulating it very well.

Lanny Davis said that we need to have a phased draw down in fairly short order to let the Iraqis know that it's time to realize that their consultants are leaving. Every Democratic candidate for president believes this. So far I think only Barack Obama has done a good job of articulating it. Only one Republican candidate, Ron Paul, believes that the consultants should take their leave. He has articulated very well, too.

I think the surge is working. I think Iraqis are realizing that the Americans (at least the soldiers, if not the politicians) care for them. I think the Americans know that it is a tenuous relationship, i.e. that the Sunnis in Anbar will turn against the Americans if we overstay our current purpose.

Our current purpose, I think, will soon be at an end. Let's give the Iraqis notice that they will soon be on their own, and let's hope and trust that they will be able to shine without their consultants.

With Abu Risha's Death, The Cheerleaders Are Jubilant

2007-09-13T21:17:00.000-06:00

Hurray, the anti-war bigots are shouting. Abu Risha is dead! I find it hard to stomach that so many Americans do cartwheels when something goes wrong in Iraq. But they're doing it again. Their hope for failure in Iraq is palpable and pathetic.

Today in a car bomb explosion prepared by al Qaeda, Abdul Sattar abu Risha and some of his body guards were killed.

The assassination Thursday of the leader of the Sunni Arab revolt against al-Qaida militants dealt a setback to one of the few success stories in U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq, but tribesmen in Anbar province vowed not to be deterred in fighting the terror movement.

American and Iraqi officials hoped the death of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha would not stall the campaign to drive al-Qaida in Iraq from the vast province spreading west of Baghdad and reconcile Sunnis with the Shiite-led national government.

And there was glee in the streets of anti-war America! Rob Kall of Op-Ed News gloats

"What's the bottom line to this killing,"- I asked.

Rowley answered, "It puts the lie to the statement that there's security in the region."-

"Bottom line," finishing my interview with Rowley, I said, "This is a charade, a chimera, this success which Petraeus portrays is actually something that will fall apart when the money stops coming in and could actually explode into far worse conflict, when the troops leave."

That statement is far from necessarily true, and can only be interpreted as a not-so-subtle hint of a hope of failure in Iraq.

The previous excerpt was from an interview Mr. Kall had with a so-called reporter in the region, a Rick Rowley, who clearly has an opinion and an axe to grind. Mr. Rowley's main sources, besides himself, for his claims are members of the al Dulaimi clan, who are know to have had serious disagreements with abu Risha.

As the Associated Press reported

"This is a criminal act and al-Qaida is behind it," said Sheik Jubeir Rashid, a senior member of Abu Risha's council. "We have to admit that it is a major blow to the council. But we are determined to strike back and continue our work. Such attack was expected, but this will not deter us."

Ali Hatem al-Sulaiman, deputy chief of the province's biggest Sunni tribe, said that if "only one small boy remains alive in Anbar, we will not hand the province over to al-Qaida."

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite who had been reluctant to support Abu Risha, expressed "great sorrow" over the killing, but said he was confident "that this criminal act will strengthen the determination of Anbar people to wipe out the terrorists."

Meanwhile, someone who is constantly mingling with the military and with the Iraqis in Anbar and elsewhere, Michael Yon, has a completely different perspective. Here are some excerpts from his recent dispatches.

Back in 2005, many Iraqi Soldiers and Police preferred to hide their identities.Today it seems that most Iraqi Soldiers and Police want their photos taken. Their confidence is growing and their attitude toward the terrorists is increasingly one of being more the hunter than the hunted.

Shops in Anbar [are] reopening. Cigarettes [are] for sale. Just recently, al Qaeda was executing people who smoked, but this shop was selling cigarettes on the street.

To many of the Iraqis I’ve spoken with, terrorists are fair game. Kill them. But if we kill justice while doing so, we will create terrorists out of farmers. Here the Marines are creating farmers, police officers, shepherds, and entrepreneurs out of insurgents. To do that, they have to be seen as men who respect and honor legitimate systems of government and justice.

The sheiks of Anbar turned against al Qaeda because the sheiks are businessmen, and al Qaeda is bad for business. But they didn’t suddenly trust Americans just because they no longer trusted al Qaeda. They are not suddenly blood allies. This is business, and that’s fine, because if there is one thing America is good at, it’s business.

This conflict is often cast as either a battle between good and evil, or as a clash of religious ideologies, perspectives that fill cemeteries with brave souls willing to die for something they believe most fervently.

Reframed thus from a position of strength, this stage of the Anbar-war is more a sort of business transaction, where alliances beneficial to all sides—except al Qaeda—are formed. From this perspective, there is now a moment of genuine ground-floor opportunity in Anbar, if the people here can see that by doing business with the Coalition, everyone benefits—except al Qaeda, an exclusion that most can live with.

Politics often sucks. But beyond the politics are the people, in this case, the Iraqi people. Far beyond the news headlines, many stories are being made. Stories of success. Stories of friendship. Stories of improving lives.

I think I trust Michael Yon more than I trust Mr. Rowley.

I wish the anti-war cheerleaders would change their cheer for a while. Little by little, it's working. People's lives are better. Life in Anbar is improving.

I Wouldn't Trust Muqtada al Sadr With a Ten-Foot Pole

2007-08-30T19:20:00.000-06:00

Muqtada al Sadr has been a pain in America's butt from nearly the beginning of the occupation. He has taken many a trip to Tehran. So it wouldn't surprise me if his latest decision to call for a suspension of Mahdi Army operations for six months is a ploy.

But what about the new guy--Ammar Hakim?

Muqtada al Sadr is walking proof that the Iranians are involved in the Iraqi insurgency.

Paul Bremer wished that he had been successful in getting rid of al Sadr early on in the Iraqi occupation. The half-hearted way about which the attempt to do so was prosecuted caused al Sadr to gain an even greater following than he had before. He is still very well thought of among a large segment of the Shia population in Iraq. So it's not likely that he's up to much good when he asks for his Army to cease operations for six months. That can only mean trouble, especially when General David Petraeus is set to report on Operation Iraqi Freedom successes before congress next month.

The BBC says:

To some extent it may be merely a tactic aimed at distancing himself from the recent violence in Karbala.

It is certainly a tactic he has used before to distance himself from some of the worst excesses of the Mehdi Army.

But it is a puzzling and potentially risky move by the young Shia leader.

Puzzling because the very call for a re-organisation of the Mehdi army would seem to be an admission that he has lost control of it.

It's not that simple. One way or the other, the Mahdi Army will continue to fight. Now is the time for coalition forces and the Iraqi people to be most on their guard. Something is brewing.

Muqtada is all about power. He's all about himself. I wouldn't trust Muqtada al Sadr with a ten-foot Pole.

I'm not sure what to think of Ammar Hakim, another 30-something who is stepping into the limelight as leader of the Shia Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which got into fighting in Kerbala in the past few days with members of al Sadr's army. Hakim has been several times to Iran as well. But at least he talks a good talk:

"We are not agents of Iran," he said. He pointed out that it was his father who had encouraged Iran to open a dialogue with the United States about Iraq, and he said it was in Iraq's interests to maintain good relations with both countries.

He cautioned against a sudden drawdown of U.S. forces, saying it would be dangerous for Iraq. He said he supported a U.S.-sponsored bill to regulate the distribution of Iraq's massive oil wealth. And he expressed willingness to compromise with Sunni Arab politicians.

Based on his early hatred of Saddam (he was taught at age 4 to participate in the anti-Saddam forces) Hakim may see the light of what America is trying to help Iraq accomplish. Time will tell whether he contributes to peace and stability in Iraq. But we already know quite a lot about Muqtada al Sadr. So far, he hasn't. Do you suspect he's turning over a new leaf? Don't count on it.

Very Amanpoor Reporting on Jihad

2007-08-28T12:33:00.000-06:00

The left screams that the media has a rightist slant. Well, I've got at least one instance where that is not true. Christiane Amanpour did essentially everything she could to misrepresent the truth in a recent CNN program entitled God's Warriors

Prior to its airing on CNN, it was said of God's Warriors by the Associated Press that

Understanding is what Amanpour is trying to promote in "God's Warriors," which takes up six prime-time hours on CNN this week.

Please...don't insult our intelligence. When someone tries to promote understanding, they try to get their facts straight. Not only did she create a great deal of misunderstanding, she caused a great deal of unneeded animosity.

One can dispute why radical Islam is so violent, but it is beyond dispute that

It is "deeply false," to equate "Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency with that of Muslims heard endorsing 'martyrdom,' or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe...

I wrote about this several months ago in The First Jewish Suicide Bomber. My point: there is yet to be one.

Jews and Christians, as compared to radical Muslims, almost never resort to violence to get their points across.

Much of the segment God's Christian Warriors deals with a man named Ron Luce, depicting him as representative of Christians. Ron who? I've been a Christian (Mormon) for 44 years, and I've never heard of him. I didn't check, but perhaps one of Ms. Amanpour's "fact checkers" was Rosie O'Donnell.

But much of the rest of "God's Christian Warriors" depicts the ministry of Ron Luce. His priority is battling what he views as an amoral popular culture. There's footage of one of Luce's "Battle Cry" youth rallies, which took place in San Francisco in March; in an understated and effective way, the documentary depicts how the two-day event used all the trappings of an extravagant rock concert to condemn most aspects of modern culture (of which rock concerts are part).

Amanpour made more than a few factually incorrect statements on the program, which can't do well to soften the angered feelings between Christians and Muslims and well as Jews and Muslims. For example, HonestReporting notes the following inaccuracy:

Amanpour does not hesitate to inject her own views, demonstrating occasional lack of knowledge. For example when an Israeli settler said God says Jews must live in Hebron, Amanpour interjected that the West Bank was designated by the UN to be the largest part of an Arab state. Not only is this statement factually incorrect, it is out of context. Amanpour is evidently unaware that all Arab states rejected UN partition resolution 181, to which she evidently referred and that the West Bank was included in the area designated for encouragement of Jewish settlement by the Balfour Declaration and even endorsed in article 6 of the British mandate.

The program also tended to be historically very out of context.

One of the most misleading aspects of the program, was the use of the very few isolated incidents of Jewish terror attempts over the past 15 years, to create the false impression that a Jewish terror movement exists on a par with the violent worldwide jihadist phenomenon of indiscriminate death and destruction.

I'm not sure whether Christiane Amanpour had a motive for the plethora of inaccuracies in her series, God's Warriors, nor if she did, what that motive would be. She's married to a former Clinton Administration official, but I'm not sure how that would play into the factual bias, except that Bill Clinton made a somewhat applicable statement at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, claiming that right-wing Christian fundamentalism and talk-show hosts had created the environment in which such a bombing could have occurred.

But at least, if Christiane Amanpour does not have a motive for her inaccuracies, her professionalism calls on her to recognize those untruths and apologize for them.

Especially in issues so volatile, factuality is critical. False statements purported as fact can have the same effect as swords, rockets, and bombs.

The Best Reason to Get Rid of al Qaeda? Al Qaeda

2007-08-23T13:10:00.000-06:00

Even the Democrats are conceding that things are looking better in Iraq. The reason that they are better is that as time goes on, more Iraqis see that the US Military has much more integrity than al Qaeda.

Even though accidental deaths are higher for the month of August, the death rate is still about that of July--part of a lower trend of US military deaths. Even considering the large scale killing in the otherwise peaceful northern Iraq this month, civilian deaths are maintaining their downward trend. Democrats in the US Congress are conceding that we're making progress. Why is this?

First of all because the surge is working. The general populace is being treated with more respect by the US military. The insurgents are getting their butts kicked. But there's another reason.

As the smoke begins to clear from the surge, Iraqis are beginning to see a distinctive difference between the US Military and al Qaeda. You can trust one but not the other. Michael Yon, who currently resides in Al Anbar, puts it this way:

Ironically, in Anbar Al Qaeda has become our best ally for killing al Qaeda. They’ve managed to do this directly, just by being al Qaeda. Despite the promised carrots, what Al Qaeda consistently delivered here was mostly stick, and with a special kind of hypocritical contempt that no sensible person would believe possible. (Not unlike the notion of baking the children of resistant parents or ordering shepards to diaper the corrupting genitals of goats.)
Al Qaeda has a management style—doing drugs, laying up sloppy drunk, raping women and boys, and cutting off heads, all while imposing strict morality laws on the locals—that makes it clear that they have one set of principles for themselves, and another for every one else.

In that kind of scheme, it didn’t take long before people in Anbar realized that any benefits from Al Qaeda having control would not be distributed equally. Once that realization spread, the tribal sheiks—almost all Sunni—had to consider the alternatives.

With the success of General Petraeus's plan, even some of the bigger fish are trying to call a truce. Captain's Quarters noticed this interesting development.

Earlier today, the Italian news service AKI reported that the presumed leader of the largest insurgency in Iraq will start cooperating with the Iraqi government. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, one of the highest-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's government, reportedly pledged to work with Iraqi and American forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Things have been improving, and they continue to do so. But it looks like our counterinsurgency tactics, which have been bearing fruit for quite some time now, are reaching critical mass. Hopefully, future improvements will be larger and/or more frequent.

al Qaeda is no good. They are not good Muslims. The Iraqis are starting to notice this en masse. Even a couple of Democrats have as well. What happens if things continue to improve? Democrats asking for Bush to serve a third term?

John Murtha Apologizes to Haditha Marines

2007-08-14T13:28:00.000-06:00

As it comes to light that John Murtha was premature in his criticism of the Marines and incorrect in his assessment about what happened in Haditha two years ago, will he apologize? I predict that you will never see the headline "John Murtha Apologizes to Haditha Marines".

Where is Congressman John Murtha now that several Marines who were charged with murder from a November 19, 2005 incident in Iraq have been exhonerated? Has he apologized for mischaracterizing what happened there and then? Nope. But he was wrong, and I suspected he was wrong way back then.

I was in Ramadi in September of 2005, when six Marines at an established observation post not far away in the town of Haditha were overrun by a band of al Qaeda insurgents and killed. The insurgents displayed and wore captured equipment from the soldiers and taunted the US military in the process with a lot of free television air time. About a week later, a gigantic bomb killed 14 more Marines in Haditha. The air-time for those killings was enormous and enormously gratifying for the newly emboldened Haditha terrorists. Some people could be forgiven for imagining that the Marines might use these events as a pretext to ignore their rules of engagement in Haditha as retribution. But you can't be forgiven for voicing these concerns on international television, as Congressman John Murtha did. Such actions are treasonous.

An improvised explosive device tore through a convoy and killed another Marine on November 19th. Under normal circumstances, the Marines would be expected to seek retribution, right? Apparently, Congressman John Murtha thought so, when at the time he said "our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." How can John Murtha be forgiven for speaking out without possibly being able to know the facts surrounding the events and fanning the flames of American liberal hatred of the American military in Iraq, despite the suspicions of a senior Marine officer that he supposedly was privy to. The event quickly but incorrectly came to be referred to as The Iraq My Lai, despite even if the allegations of Haditha were true, the two incidents are hardly comparable.

Oops! So sorry.

It turns out John Murtha was wrong, and yesterday he apologized.

Just kidding.

Even though nearly every member of the Marine unit that supposedly went on a rampage that night has been exhonerated, John Murtha is still in hiding.

His premature revelation of a conversation he supposedly had with "The Commandant of the Marine Corps" is inexcusable. It did more than almost any other event to sour the American public on the Iraq war. It created in many who were violently opposed to the war unfair expectations that many heads should roll, regardless of what the truth is.

The American opinion of the Iraq war (and the greater or lesser likelihood that US troops would exit Iraq) has a marked effect on the Iraqi mood toward the American troops. But John Murtha was not interested in the proven innocence or guilt of those supposedly involved in the Haditha incident on November 19, 2005. It was supposed that at least 6 individuals would be found guilty of their participation in the events of that evening. All but two, however, have now been exonerated. The trials of the last two marines are still future, but the political pressure will now be enormous to find the last two to be tried guilty of murder, in large part because of what John Murtha said.

He was clearly wrong to reveal to the American public what he had heard. But he didn't care. He's in lockstep with those who have overinvested in American failure in Iraq. The exoneration of yet two more of the Haditha Marines is very frustrating to those who already have their minds made up that America should fail in bringing liberty to Iraq. So if you're planning on holding your breath until John Murtha apologizes, I give you fair warning--your bones will long have decayed in your grave before that happens.

Ramadi Enjoying New Sense of Hope and Optimism

2007-08-10T14:06:00.000-06:00

Things started to improve when I was in Ramadi in the first half of 2006. But it's really improved in the year since then.

I left the Ramadi area in June 2006. According to an ABC news story, there were 450 attacks in that month. A year later, in June 2007, there were only 25.

The image you see above is Ambassador Ryan Crocker in downtown Ramadi, without a flack vest. It is working between the US and the Iraqis, because they understand more all the time that we're there to help.

Click here to view the ABC News Story.

PBS: "See No Islamism, Hear No Islamism, Speak No Islamism"

2007-08-05T18:14:00.000-06:00

Before watching Muslims vs Jihad, the companion to the supposed-to-be-on-PBS-but-now-isn’t documentary Islam vs Islamists, I thought PBS didn’t want to show Islam vs Islamists because the show did not do a good job of depicting that large segment of the Muslim population that does not support Islamism and terror. I was wrong. The thing which ultimately gives PBS pause about Islam vs. Islamists is that the moderates actually do such an excellent job of pointing out the debaucheries of the Muslim radicals.

Now I know why they won’t show it. Because the truth hurts those who don’t want to admit or let it be known that an enormous chasm exists between moderate Muslims and hate-filled Islamists. PBS claimed not to see the moderate Muslims as representative of mainstream Islam. It’s a subtle play on words, but moderate Muslims are Muslims just the same.

Radical members of any society will get more print and airtime that their moderate members. That's the sad fact of an American media who wants whatever is salacious as opposed to whatever is true. Real Clear Politics explains why a cursory glance at our world makes it seem like there are very few moderate Muslims:

Are there moderate Muslims? And if there are, why aren't they speaking out against the beheaders and the suicide bombers?

A lot of people ask those questions. Canadian filmmaker Martyn Burke set out to answer them. He made a documentary. "Islam vs. Islamist," which was financed in part by a $675,000 grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. Burke hired journalists who reported from Denmark, France, Canada and the United States. There are a great many moderate Muslims, they found, but they don't speak out because they are intimidated by threats of coercion, ostracism and physical violence from the Islamists in their communities.

It’s no wonder that very few moderate Muslims speak out. Have you ever been threatened with violence if you speak out about a certain issue? Many of these people have. It takes great guts to stand up and speak out in the violent face of Islamists, let alone when you find they have their sycophants, such as the “See No Islamism, Hear No Islamism, Speak No Islamism” PBS.

According to a Fox News broadcast, in which several segments from the film were shown and discussed, PBS said the film was alarmist and overreaching, and that the producers of the film had demonized the Islamists. The film did no such thing; it simply allowed those who themselves had been demonized to speak the truth. I can’t help but wonder if PBS is afraid of the screechings of such groups as the Council on American Islamic Relations, who don’t want Islam vs. Islamists to be shown. It is clear to anyone watching the video that moderate Muslims blame Saudi Arabia for financing the bulk world Jihad. The Saudis, therefore, who have a great influence on America and many friends in American high places, will by no means be flattered by this film, and they have a great interest in its not being shown.

Nahid Riazy is one who dares to stand up against the excesses of Islam, such as the mistreatment of women. Many such still-Muslim women, including her, fear for their lives. Some are afraid to have their faces on camera, but she is not. She and others have had obscenities shouted at them and eggs thrown at them as they walk down the street. Others have been killed. Leaders of the Islamists, such as Said Mansour, claim that these women are not really Muslims (a spurious charge often made even by non-Muslims against those who do not follow the Islamist variety of Islam), and that in their struggle for democracy and liberty, they are actually limiting themselves.

Many crisis centers are being created to help these women.

Mansour said that Muslims must be God’s slaves--which apparently gives him and others like him the authority to be God’s taskmasters. They are doing a fine job of it! “You don’t ask questions about the religion. You are either a total Muslim, or you are not [a Muslim],” he said in an interview during the film.

Frank Gaffney, who helped with the film, said that PBS wanted them to change the story, to illustrate a moral equivalence between the Islamists and those who opposed their violent form of Islam. The producers of Islam vs. Islamists made several changes over the course of six months, but they refused to subvert the truth about the controversy inside the Muslim religion. They brought in several consultants from Paris, Scandinavia, and Canada, who agreed that the show was accurate, and who came to the conclusion that PBS must have already decided that it would never be satisfied with the end result.

Abd al Malik of France was in earlier years being drawn in by the thuggery of fundamentalist Islam. Then 9/11 happened. He is now a popular rap star (and is still a Muslim) in France. One of his most popular pieces is called “September the 12th”. Here are some of the words:

I already knew a flow of whackos when the twin towers went down
I already knew a flow of crazies when the twin towers were blown out
I was profoundly shocked. And let me tell you
If I hadn’t had my faith, I would have felt guilty for being a Muslim.

After that the eyes of the world were on us
And we had to show the world that we were human to
That if some of us were crazies
Most of us would never mix our politics with our faith

Previously, when al Malik joined the Islamist gangs of France, looking for and threatening those Muslims who did not seem as Muslim as they were. When he was assigned to plant a bomb in a French police station, he decided that Islamism was wrong, and he left. When he decided to go into the music industry, his break with the Islamists—who felt any kind of music was bad—was complete. Since then he has discovered that the correct--the real--Islam is peace.

The rise of this poisonous version of Islam is being funded by Saudi Arabia. Ahmed Amiruddin, a Muslim sheihk living in Canada, who has been threatened for his view, thinks the attraction of fundamentalist Islam is the glory of a past that was lost. Faheem Bukhari of Canada agrees that the tenets of the radical version of Islam that are being perpetuated in North America are exclusively of a Saudi variety.

Are the movies Muslims vs. Jihad and Islam vs Islamists worth your time? Not only are they, you can’t afford not to watch them. The DVD of Islam vs Islamists is in the pre-production stages, and will hopefully be available later this month. For now, you can watch segments of Muslims vs Jihad by clicking here.

At the very least you can make your own decision about what is really happening in the Muslim world. Unfortunately, PBS doesn't want you to do that.

The Religion Terrorists and the Information Technology Terrorists

2007-08-03T11:38:00.000-06:00

The Information Technology terrorists are getting as sophisticated as the religious ones--particularly those of the Islamist type. Hearing what the information security companies are finding makes me think I'm back in Iraq.

The information terrorists seem to be learning a great deal from the religious terrorists. Their tactics continue to improve and their attacks mount. But the one thing they haven't learned yet is to try and make a moral case for their terrorism. It's been working for the religious terrorists--many people take their moralistic claims hook, line, and sinker.

Information Week reported recently about the number of phishing attacks on banks around the world.

The number of hackers attacking banks worldwide jumped 81% from last year, according to figures released at the BlackHat security conference Thursday. Researchers from SecureWorks also reported that hackers going after the company's credit-union clients increased by 62% from last year.

So why are there so many more hackers this year than last? Joe Stewart, a senior security researcher at SecureWorks, told InformationWeek that highly technical and savvy hackers are no longer the only ones in the game.

Hackers no longer need to be technical wizards to set up an operation to steal people's banking information and then rob their accounts or sell their identifying information to an even bigger cybercriminal. Hacking toolkits and malware are for sale in the online underground. All hackers need are basic technical skills and the knowledge of where to go to buy what they can't build themselves.

"You go to a Web site and pay a $100 to several hundred dollars, and you can buy a turnkey exploit package," said Stewart. "You can buy the malware too, and then you're in business You put these components up on a Web site and immediately start infecting people. All you really need to know how to do at this point is set up a Web site."

This new ease-of-use is evident in the numbers.

With time, terrorists improve their tactics. It doesn't matter if the religious ones are in Iraq or not, they'll find a way to become better at the atrocities they commit. They're getting very good in Europe, fairly good in Canada, and they're starting to appear in the US.

Below is the part of the IW article that sounded the most interesting. Change a few words of it, and it sounds like raiding terrorist hideouts in Iraq.

"The amount of stolen financial data we have found since the first of the year has been daunting," said Don Jackson, a security researcher with SecureWorks and the discoverer of the Gozi and Prg Trojans. "With the Gozi, Prg, and BBB Trojans alone, we found millions of dollars of data sitting in their stolen repositories. These data caches contained thousands of bank-account and credit-card numbers, Social Security numbers, online payment accounts, and user names and passwords, and we're finding new caches of stolen data every day -- evidence that more and more criminals are getting into the game."

"Criminals are getting into the game" ... you could say that about the religious terrorists as well. They're mostly just criminals.

Hopefully the information terrorists don't start studying Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin to soon, or we might find them announcing to the world that they are simply getting their due from the greedy capitalist pigs of America as well.

The "Mini-Surge" is Showing Some Promise

2007-07-30T15:34:00.000-06:00

For those who disagree with the Iraq war and the Bush Administration, one thing would improve the stock of our integrity--to admit that, despite our feelings one way or the other, the mini-surge is working in Iraq. Updated 8/4/2007

On today's edition of The Right Balance with Greg Allen, guest Daveed Gartenstein-Ross pointed out much more eloquently than I that a person lacks integrity when they let their politics color their opinion of what reality is. Nowhere is this more evident than in the current goings-on in the Iraq war. A lot of people are against the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War (including me), and they can't seem to admit when something goes right (not including me).

Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution are now admitting that it is going right (H/T Utah Rattler).

Troop morale is higher than possibly ever.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Parts of Baghdad are looking better.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

The north is seeing large-scale US troop reductions due to the success there. The Iraqis' greatest fear is that we will leave too soon.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

O'Hanlon and Pollack state (and I agree) that we can't stay there forever, but to leave too soon would be a travesty.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Investor's Business Daily weighs in on this subject as well.

It's now quite clear how the results of the surge will be dealt with by domestic opponents of the Iraq War: They're going to be ignored.

They're being ignored now. Virtually no media source or Democratic politician is willing to admit that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically over the past three months. Coalition efforts have undergone a remarkable reversal of fortune, a near-textbook example as to how an effective strategy can overcome what appear to be overwhelming drawbacks.

A cursory glance at 1943 would have given the impression of disaster: Kasserine, in which the German Wehrmacht nearly split Allied forces in Tunisia and sent American GIs running; Tarawa, where over 1,600 U.S. Marines died on a sunny afternoon thanks to U.S. Navy overconfidence; and Salerno, where the Allied landing force was very nearly pushed back into the sea.

But all these incidents, as bitter as they may have been, were necessary to develop the proper techniques that led to the triumphs of 1944 and 1945.

Someday, 2006 may be seen as Iraq's 1943. It appears that Gen. David Petreaus has discovered the correct strategy for Iraq: engaging the Jihadis all over the map as close to simultaneously as possible. Keeping them on the run constantly, giving them no place to stand, rest or refit. Increasing operational tempo to an extent that they cannot match, leaving them harried, uncertain and apt to make mistakes.

Update 8/4/2007 It appears that al Qaeda thinks quite highly of General Petraeus as well. The London Times reports:

Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person’s face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood.

The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.

“They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace,” said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area.

Petraeus and al Maliki Disagree? Get the Heck Outta Here!

2007-07-29T21:15:00.000-06:00

The newspaper reported this morning that General David Petraeus' and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al Maliki's personalities are grating on each other. That is no surprise. Petraeus has an interest to see the Iraqi people succeed in their quest for liberty, while al Maliki has ever only had the interests of the Iraqi Shia' at heart. Updated 8/4/2007

I wonder what would happen if the Iraqi people did their genealogy. Some of the lines are probably already pretty well known. But I'd bet that they'd find in many cases that, regardless of whether they are now Sunni or Shia', somewhere along the line they are related. Is that what it might take to solve the problem of religious hatred in Iraq?

It sure doesn't seem to be working with Nouri al Maliki at the helm.

A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.

Iraq's foreign minister calls the relationship "difficult." Petraeus, who says their ties are "very good," acknowledges expressing his "full range of emotions" at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes "sometimes there are sporty exchanges."

It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general's tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.

An associate said al-Maliki once, in discussion with President Bush, even threatened to counter this by arming Shiite militias.

You mean like the ones he's already armed?

Just before I left Iraq in 2006, al Maliki became the Iraqi prime minister. All sorts of platitudes were offered, and I found myself somehow optimistic that al Maliki would make things happen. I shouldn't be surprised that I was wrong. Al Maliki seems to be a Shia first and an Iraqi last. It might have been easier if George Bush would have thought of nuances like these before we went running pell mell into Baghdad.

Maybe Petraeus should give Nouri al Maliki an ultimatum. Treat all Iraqis the same or we're outta here. Unfortunately, that's probably just what al Maliki and his Iranian compatriots want.

Update 8/4/2007 Harry Reid says the war is lost.

This [Iraq] war is lost," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has stated emphatically and without qualification. "There's simply no evidence that the escalation is working," he said recently. It requires "blind hope, blind trust" to believe in progress of any sort.

Maybe we should put him in charge of the US Forces in Iraq. Then again... General Petraeus says differently.

We have achieved . . . a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground. Gains against the principal near-term threat, al Qaeda-Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long-term threat, Shia militia extremists as well.

Being called a Shia extremist probably didn't sit well with Shia' extremist Nouri al Maliki. But you know, General Petraeus is right.

Get Your Hands Out of There!!!

2007-07-24T20:44:00.000-06:00

Regardless of what you think about the way the Bush Administration has handled the war in Iraq, you have to admit...

...

Barack Obama and the Iraq War

2007-07-24T17:24:00.001-06:00

Either Barack Obama is a very smooth talker, or he is a very sensible individual. I personally think he is a sensible individual. I am contemplating casting my vote for him for President of the United States. I recently read one of his books, and I found a lot in it on which I could agree with him. I was very impressed with what he said in a recent Democratic debate about the war in Iraq.

Here's what he said recently:

Here are a couple of excerpts from the video segment.

"The time for us to ask how we are going to get out of Iraq was before we went in."

"Our soldiers have done everything that's been asked of them," including the deposing of Saddam Hussein.

"We can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."

"There is no military solution to the problems we face in Iraq."

He also asked how can the Iraqi government think it is important to have American troops there when they just went on vacation for three weeks because it's too hot? If this is what they think of their struggle for liberty, why are we even there?

I do think there are still military solutions to aid in Iraqi liberty, but I agree with Senator Obama that the Iraqi government is taking this all too cavalierly. Perhaps the best thing we could do is tell them, "See ya. We're outta here."

The quandary that I am in personally revolves around two facts:

(1) that I was never in favor of the US invading Iraq in the first place. On this I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Obama. (I think Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate for president who feels this way.)

(2) that I served in Iraq, made many friends, and I'm now invested in their well-being, and I hope that they succeed in their quest for liberty.

George W. Bush and his helpers didn't really ever seem to be interested in the Iraqi success, because at every turn, their plans have been of the sophomoric variety.

I agree with Barack Obama that George W. Bush never made a good case for war in Iraq. I respect that had he been in the Senate in 2002-2003, he would have voted against the invasion.

Another thing I can agree with Barack Obama on is that the Iraq War has become a "dumb war" and George W. Bush should be held accountable for it.

About the Iraq war, it is the following quote which engenders in me the greatest respect for Barack Obama:

Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope.

There's one other thing that it's not too late to get right about this war. And that is the homecoming. The men and women. The veterans who have sacrificed the most. Let us honor their courage by providing the care they need and rebuilding the military they love. Let us be the generation that begins that work.

The Angel of Marye's Heights

2007-07-24T16:17:00.000-06:00

This post has nothing to with Iraq, except that it exemplifies the sort of dignity with which we should comport ourselves in any combat situation. This is the Civil War story of Richard Kirkland, The Angel of Marye's Heights.

I recently toured much of the eastern United States with my three oldest children on their Utah Valley Children's Choir "One Nation Under God" tour. They performed in 8 different venues, one of which was Fredericksburg, Virginia. After the Fredericksburg concert, we stayed overnight in the home of Maurice and Alicia McBride. We got up early the next morning so that we would have some extra time, and Alicia was so kind as to give us a tour of some of the sites of the Battle of Fredericksburg. We were able to visit Marye's Heights, where a statue stands dedicated to one of the most selfless individuals of the American Civil War, Richard Kirkland.

Here is a summation of his story:

For the next two days Union troops were unable to find peace. Confederate snipers took advantage of their positions atop Willis Hill to pick off the unlucky Federal troops concentrating at the edge of Fredericksburg. It was on the bitterly-cold night of December 15 that Confederate Sergeant Richard Kirkland, his conscience unable to endure the ghastly sounds of suffering coming from the Union positions, risked his life by crossing the stone wall and providing the fallen Union troops with aid and water. This small act of human decency in the middle of such savage brutality is today remembered by a nearby monument dedicated to "The Angel of Marye’s Heights."

Good things can happen, even in battle. When the combat ends, we should each hope that we can return home with a clear conscience. Richard Kirkland reminds us that we can all comport ourselves with dignity, even in combat.

Why Do Utahns Support George W. Bush?

2007-07-22T17:34:00.000-06:00

It is interesting that, of all the states in the Union, Utahns still have the highest approval rating for President Bush than any other state. I think I know why.

For the included graphic, I am indebted to The Utah Amicus (by way of Richard Warnick).

No other state in the United States has as high of an approval rating for President Bush as Utah. As far as I know, it's been that way for quite some time.

Here are a couple of my theories why:

Theory 1

I have noticed of late that Utah Mormons generally seem to be much more forgiving of a president who misuses his executive power than of a president who is sexually immoral. At first I supposed this was due to their heads being filled on any given day with the mush of Rush Limbaugh and the rantings of Sean Hannity. I have lately decided, however, that the opposite is true; Utah Mormons worship Rush, Sean, and others because these so-called conservatives preach a “gospel” that is deceptively similar to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to wit that we should eschew immorality while at the same time rendering unto Caesar that which belongs to him. The gospel they actually preach, though, is a politics of ad hominem attacks and division.

This, then, is my theory of why President George W. Bush as late as the end of 2007 still enjoyed an inordinate amount of popular support from the Utah crowd, while Utahns were among the first to call for the head of President Bill Clinton when his sexual improprieties became public. Most Latter-Day Saints are so busy living the gospel that they forget that politics are important as well.

Theory 2

The doctrines of the LDS church include the following statement about the Constitution and about liberty:

76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be baccountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

Doctrine and Covenants, section 101

I think a significant number of Utahns want to see liberty take root in Iraq. I think they are worried that if they don't express support for President Bush that it will be seen as lack of support for the struggles of the Iraqi people. I don't share this view (I think Bush has made a monumental mess of it), but I see how people could feel this way.

What do you think?

If you'd like to participate in the poll about this subject, look in the upper right-hand color of this page.

"Keyboard Equals Kalashnikov"

2007-06-27T10:10:00.000-06:00

The Islamists are doing a remarkable job at getting their propaganda into cyberspace. We're too busy bickering among ourselves about Paris Hilton and American Idol to mount any sort of counteroffensive. If we don't start paying attention, we're going to be screwed.

"The pen is mightier than the sword," we say. Islamists have a new mantra, which says "Keyboard equals Kalashnikov." The Cybercast News Service is reporting today that

Islamist groups have created a sophisticated online media network, complete with multi-media video and audio, to spread their message to audiences speaking English and other Western languages, several studies have shown.

According to one organization, radical groups want to go further, infiltrating mainstream, non-political, non-Islamic websites and forums to further spread their message.

The bin Laden, al Qaeda, Salafist, Wahhabist view of the world is that the world belongs to them, because it is their right to govern, and they will stop only when they have achieved that aim, regardless of what specific hatred they may have for America being in the Middle East. For what it's worth, there is an interesting corollary of this modern-day lust for power in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Former-day turncoat Ammoron, who became by intrigue the king of the Lamanite people, breathed out the following threat against his former people, the Nephites.

For behold, your fathers did wrong their brethren, insomuch that they did rob them of their right to the government when it rightly belonged unto them.
And now behold, if ye will lay down your arms, and subject yourselves to be governed by those to whom the government doth rightly belong, then will I cause that my people shall lay down their weapons and shall be at war no more.

The Islamist variety of Muslims will be at war with America so long as there are both Islamists and Americans. It is high time we realize that fact. It would redound to our good health, shall we say, to do so.

To the Islamists who have the same rage as the ancient Lamanite people did, I say "Nuts!" But most people are too busy watching Paris Hilton and American Idol to even notice.

Truth or Propaganda?

2007-06-24T12:12:00.001-06:00

When the Iraq war is being reported, it's critical that we get our news from trustworthy sources, and not from the sources that support our political opinion about the war. It's not uncommon for US news sources to parrot untruths that originate with sources friendly to al Qaeda.

While I was serving in Iraq, it was common to wonder why the news was being reported the way it was, because it didn't seem to be a good picture of what was really happening. Sometimes it was just lazy reporting, or an attempt on the part of the reporter to report that which was most sensational. Sometimes it was fear on the part of the reporter to get outside of the Green Zone to find out what was really going on. In many cases, US news relies on news 'stringers' or local reporters that do the reporting for them. It makes me wonder if they rely on stringers more than they do the military for such reporting.

John Hughes, former editor of the Christian Science Monitor tells of one such story.

A Marine officer whose credibility I trust cites an operation of success in the Fallujah region earlier this month that was reported as a disaster by US and British media companies. His unit had established a new precinct headquarters for Iraqi police, Army troops, and US Marines to patrol and protect a dedicated area. It was well received by the local populace and almost 200 Iraqis volunteered for police recruitment. Insurgents sought to disrupt it but were routed.

Meanwhile, in a separate firefight at a makeshift suicide vehicle factory, three separate suicide bombers were killed, two suicide trucks were discovered and blown up, and foreign and other fighters were killed or captured. On the defending side, one civilian and one policeman were wounded, with no US or other casualties. "The enemy was killed in his tracks; his best weapon was discovered before it could cause any harm," says the officer, "but Western media reported no enemy killed in these operations, 28 civilians killed, and 50 civilians wounded. We are getting demolished," the Marine officer says, "by nefarious enemy media outlets … 'reporters' or 'sources' for Arab and other news agencies either on insurgent payrolls or who have known sympathies with insurgent operations, and by collective Western media that are often being manipulated by enemy elements. What incredible economy of effort the enemy is afforded when US media is their megaphone. Why spend precious resources on developing your own propaganda machine when you can make your opponent's own news outlets scream your message louder than you could ever have hoped to do independently?"

Do we think it's important to know the truth, or to propagate those ideas that most closely match our opinion of whether we should be in Iraq? I think that, regardless of what our opinion is, what's true is true. That's what should be reported.

Al Qaeda and al Jazeera are not reliable sources of news. And reliable news sources shouldn't rely on them. Even if it is more exciting than the truth.

How Many Mistakes? Who is to Blame?

2007-06-23T11:31:00.000-06:00

The tightrope we walk in Iraq is sometimes broken by senseless acts of American soldiers. Is this story one of them, or is it another in the long line of deaths than can be chalked up to the provocations of terrorism?

If the story is as the people in the story say, an American soldier is a murderer. It's not that easy, however. The provocations that Americans live under every day explains how something like this could happen.

If the Iraqi people really want violence to stop in their country, they have to speak out more loudly against sectarian strife, whose flames are constantly fanned by al Qaeda in the Iranians.

Making Sense of the Iranian Juggernaut

2007-06-23T10:30:00.001-06:00

After reading The UN Exposed by Eric Shawn, I now understand how Iran can be so brazen in its efforts to further its interests by destabilizing the world.

Iraq thumbed its nose at the United States and the United Nations for a lot of years. Why? Because France, Russia, and China thumbed their noses at regulations detailed in UN Resolution 661 regarding the UN Oil for Food program, while they hopped right into bed with Saddam Hussein.

Did you ever get an idea that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said neener neener to the world just because he felt like it? Well, not really. It's because he and his mullahs understand the pattern of getting away with it. He watched Iraq do it for several years. Right now (and for the last several years--have China and Russia/Soviet Union really ever been US allies?) it's pretty hard to call the 3 stooges of the UN Security Council (Russia, France, and China) allies. With allies like these...

The Iranians support all sorts of terrorism:

Hamas
Hizballah
al Qaeda
Taliban
Iraqi Shiites
Iraqi Sunnis
Kuridstan Workers Party

Why? Because they know they can with impunity. They watched Saddam break all kinds of international rules, including supporting terrorism--very successfully with the help of the United Nations. Until the British and the Americans said 'Enough'.

It's simple economics for the 3 Stooges. If they can make money while destroying the American hegemon, they don't care about the long-term consequences.

What's Left of Oil is Under Revenue Sharing Now

2007-06-22T19:53:00.000-06:00

During the Oil for Food days, Saddam had a sweetheart deal with France, Russia, and China for cheap oil. What's left of it is now being divided up under a new revenue sharing law. That sounds a little bit more fair.

Why were France, Russia, and China against attacking Saddam Hussein in 2003? Because they stood to lose a lot of money. Because they were violating the Oil-for-Food resolution with reckless abandon and making money hand over fist while doing it. I don't know what their status is now, but back then they had something of a adulterous political relationship with Saddam. It kind of gives you a better perspective on why George W. Bush went around the thugs in the United Nations, doesn't it? It makes you wonder if you can trust what the French, Chinese, and Russian governments say about the United States.

At any rate, a new revenue sharing law has been agreed to, that seems to be amenable to all parties:

...for the last month, Hawrami said, the revenue sharing has been on the front burner. Disagreements had been over how to split percentages and exactly the mechanism for collecting and redistributing the funds.
The new law would split revenue into external and internal accounts, to be divided between the regions -- Kurdistan is the only formal region currently -- and provinces, "after the deduction for the federal government's needs to do its federal duties," he said, "like defense and foreign office, the rest of it, which is according to the constitution."
"The external will capture all the oil revenue and any other revenue -- for example donations, loans and so on," Hawrami said. "All the internal taxes and customs collected on behalf or by the federal government will go to an internal account."

During the Oil for Bribes heyday, Russia got 30% of Saddam's bribes, France 15%, and China 10% (I think Halliburton was getting the other 45%). Revenue now looks like it'll be distributed more equitably.

Military Success and Political Failure in Iraq

2007-06-22T19:00:00.000-06:00

Don't ask how bad the government is functioning in Iraq right now--not good. But the Iraq and Coalition forces are making some impressive gains right now.

There's a reason for the increased number of US casualties over the last little while in Iraq. Instead of sitting back on the FOBs (Forward Operating Bases), more of our soldiers are taking it to the terrorists. And while the Iraqi government is seen by some as on life support, the military is making great strides in securing areas of the country and of Baghdad. Here are some highlights:

* In those of Baghdad neighborhoods where terrorists held sway, Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. troops, are establishing an effective presence, allowing a slow return to normal. Reassured by the troop presence, the inhabitants of at least one neighborhood, Amiriyah, have chased away a terror outfit entrenched there since 2003.

Reports indicate that in the last 10 weeks the various armed enemies of new Iraq have suffered their heaviest losses since the start of the conflict four years ago.

* the insurgents are suffering a significant number of defections while an unknown number are believed to have left Iraq, presumably to pursue "jihad" in other Muslim countries.

* Coalition and Iraqi forces have seized weapons from the insurgents on an unprecedented scale. More than 20 bomb-making factories have also been discovered and neutralized in and around Baghdad.

* The morale of both U.S. and Iraqi troops has been boosted by the decision by the Democrat Party to tone down its campaign against U.S. military commitment to Iraq. There is a feeling in Baghdad that the possibility of America opting for a cut-and-run strategy has decreased. That, in turn, has encouraged the Iraqi military to stop hedging its bets and enter the battle with greater resolve.

Additionally, residents in Baquba are helping the coalition forces rout out the insurgents after having been terrorized for months.

The Present in Light of the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal

2007-06-21T20:49:00.000-06:00

The tale of scandal surrounding the United Nations "Oil-for-Food" program makes an interesting backdrop for the current situation in Iraq. It also tells us why several nations did not support the United States in getting rid of Saddam Hussein--hatred mixed with a dash of greed.

The United States is regularly pilloried in the United Nations. Unfortunately, what was once sport only in the UN's unhallowed halls has spilled over into a vitriolic form of American debate. How much of the untruths behind UN hatred of America have many Americans bought? A great deal.

One of the greatest of the untruths, stage managed in great measure by Saddam Hussein himself, was the Oil-for-Food (OFF) scandal.

The total value of contracts under Oil for Food was more than $100 billion -- or $64.2 billion in oil sales and $38.7 billion in humanitarian purchases. Subtract a few billion dollars the U.N. spent in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, and you have some $100 billion worth of business that Saddam was able to steer wherever he wanted.

OFF became the seedbed for Saddam's prodigious appetite for palace building--78 in fact--while his people starved. Saddam's cronies were placed at the head of a series of "front" companies whose primary purpose was to enrich the Baath elite and to further WMD programs. He purchased armaments from 13 countries, including North Korea, China, Russia, and France.

Interestingly enough, the Clinton and Bush administrations looked the other way while a lot of oil was traded for a lot of money outside the confines of the OFF program.

Paul Volcker headed a commission to study OFF and determined that Saddam was as much as $11 billion richer as a result of the UN's ill-conceived program.

One could not work for the OFF program without Saddam's approval. Saddam's friends and family became the bulk of the 3,000 workers who were paid out of OFF proceeds to administer the program. They were also the public relations people. Usually, the United Nations accepted and gave an official stamp of approval for Iraqi lies. Dr. Rehan Mullick, originally assigned by the UN to monitor OFF in Iraq, was demoted and ultimately fired, when he brought such unseemly facts to light.

The worst of the lies was with regard to medical and food supplies for the children. Allegedly, 5,000 children per months were dying due to lack of food and medicine, according to "official reports" fed to the UN by the Hussein PR Agency. Much like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq currently, the Hussein PR Agency was very adept at painting a picture of US and UN malfeasance, when in reality Iraq shared the bulk of the blame with the wily snakes at the UN.

As part of the OFF steal, UN allotted itself 2.2% of the proceeds, which amounted to $1.4 billion. So that's why they never 'noticed' that anything was going wrong in the program, including a faaaaaaat paycheck for Secretary General Kofi Annan--ahem--I mean, his son.

It's easy to blame America's insatiable appetite for oil. But why not blame France, Russia, and China, who benefited enormously from cheap oil during the scandal years?

The United Nations is a broken organization. It is little more than a band of criminals. Can it be saved and rebuilt? Maybe. But while George W. Bush has made a plethora of mistakes with regard to the Iraq War, going ahead without the United Nations was NOT one of them. They still haven't gotten their act together. Unseemly hatred of America spurs on several of its constituent nations in their Gadarene rush to destruction. Unslaked greed propels many of the rest of them.

Bush didn't do himself and the United States any favors by his flimsy excuse for attacking Iraq and his even more silly planning for said windmill tilt. But what dismays me even worse than that is the attitude of some Americans--they've been listening to the crooks and liars in the United Nations too much lately, and their utter hatred of Bush has become irrational.

Why are we surprised that Oil-for-Food was a scandal? It was conceived by one.

Encouraging the Younger Generation

2007-06-21T03:04:00.000-06:00

Summary: Young Iraqis are very supportive of American service members in Iraq. But what about young Americans? Many of them are supportive as well. We need to ensure that they all know why the struggle for freedom around the world is so essential--because they are the next torchbearers.

(This was originally published April 16, 2006 while I was serving in Habbaniya, Iraq)

My father served in a civilian capacity in Vietnam before the war started. He went to Ft. Benning and became a Green Beret. After serving as a Staff Sergeant and an artillery gun chief, he became an officer. He served for nearly 30 years and retired as a colonel. So you would expect someone from his posterity to continue the tradition. Based on personality, I just would have expected it to be one of my brothers instead of me.

After looking back on my nearly 24-year military career I wonder sometimes not only how I made it this far, but how I joined in the first place. I still don’t see myself as the military type. But am I glad I have served? Absolutely. And nothing has made my service more worthwhile than having been able to participate in setting up a beachhead for liberty in the Middle East.

Some of my sons express interest in the military from time to time. Based on personality, I suspect that a couple of them will join. But I might be surprised at who it actually is when it all comes down to it. Will I encourage them to serve in the military? Absolutely. I already do. The promulgation of freedom is the noblest of endeavors.

The younger American generation, I believe, has a higher level of intelligence than my generation. A higher level of intelligence demands a higher level of respect. A higher level of intelligence is more likely to demand to know the why of things. But if it knows the why, and the why is valid, you can count on its support. Higher intelligence is also more likely to contemplate and select the best of the moral aspects of life.

This accounts for a percentage of the younger generation who perhaps don’t see the urgency of our service in Iraq—who wish we would pull up our tent stakes and come home. Many of them are asking ‘why’? But intelligent people can be persuaded to see that if we pull up tent stakes in a sandstorm, the tent and everything in it will blow away and be destroyed.

To an extent, the questioning of our purpose in Iraq makes for a healthy discussion. What is not healthy is the effect a small percentage of America’s social elite has on the perspective of the younger generation. I think it is despicable that:

A moviestar can consider himself and expert on foreign policy
A news organization can editorialize every day on its front page
A political party can be so bent on survival that it subscribes to the truth only when its purposes are suited

These are the odds that our younger generation is up against. And you can bet that the rest of the world knows it—especially Iran.

The ideal that was uniquely American came into being despite insurmountable odds. But liberty is no longer just an American ideal. Against insurmountable odds, liberty will continue to win. The vanguard of liberty will continue to push back fear and ignorance around the globe. That fact is already being demonstrated. Too many things—the most notable to me of which are 3 peaceful, on-schedule Iraqi elections—have happened that logically shouldn’t have. America is a choice land, and despite a few very unsightly blemishes (3 of which are bullet-listed above), we will continue to carry the torch of freedom. As those nations of the earth benighted by despots see the light of liberty they will throw off the chains that have been forged for them. To think, say, and do what one wants is a right which, once realized, is difficult to extinguish.

To you, young Americans, we prepare to pass the Torch. You are intelligent, so you can ferret out the facts from the spewage of fiction that bombards you every day. You are moral, because you value your freedom to speak and do as you choose, and you are learning that this right is important and imperative for all mankind. Do I think you’re up to such a monumental task? Absolutely.

"A Perpetual State of War"

2007-06-16T07:24:00.001-06:00

Of the issues on which I agree and disagree with former Vice President Al Gore in his new book The Assault on Reason, one to which I highly subscribe is the unhealthiness of being in "a perpetual state of war" with terrorism.

Sometime in late 2002 I remember hearing a radio news report wherein it was suggested that if we attacked Iraq, it would be likely that we would have to occupy it for up to 12 years. How strange, then, that it turns out that the Bush Administration did not have a post-invasion plan to undergo a successful occupation of the country.

Several members of Congress asked the Bush administration what its occupation plan was for Iraq.

...Secretary Rumsfeld said that he wasn't certain we would have any responsibility at all. "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide," Rumsfeld said. At that very moment, we now know, he was attempting to shut down the program at the U.S. Army War College that was focused on post-invasion stabilization. (Gore, p. 190)

Others in the Bush administration said that the Iraq invasion and regime change would be a cakewalk. Surely, they knew better.

In The Assault on Reason, Al Gore makes this statement:

[If we subscribe to] the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch as far into the future as we can imagine. These claims must be rejected, and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation. (p. 226)

If for no other reason than that Gore's statement is a challenge to all future presidential administrations, I find his statement very enlightening and profound. But it's more than that. It teaches (reminds?) us that we can't afford to elect establishmentarians to office. The perpetual state of increasing government--choreographed by background shadow puppeteers--in the United States makes me wonder how much differently Al Gore would have acted had he been president on 9/11. The fact that Al Gore was Vice President in an administration that gave a great deal of military and other concessions to the Chinese adds to my hypothesis, but for my current purposes, I will simply say that I agree completely with the above-quoted statement.

The fact that I opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place has been detailed in these pages. The negative ramifications of the invasion are becoming all the more apparent as the days and months go by. But regardless of whether we supported the invasion or not, the main focus of our criticism--now that we are there--is why we haven't done of better job of achieving our goals. (Sort of reminds me of a border fence that hasn't been built yet...)

Most negative ramifications of our Iraq invasion and occupation accrue due to the inelegant way the Bush administration 'planned' for the post-invasion. If plans had been made, my opinion is that the country would have been stabilized by now. But I am subscribing ever more readily now to a personal theory that 'no plan' was the plan.

How do we square the statements that we would be in Iraq for 12 years with administration statements that it will be a cakewalk, and that we don't need to plan for occupation? It can only be squared in the desire for the Bush administration to be in a perpetual state of war.

All of you who voted for president Bush were stupid. If you did it twice, you're really stupid (unless you've repented, as I know some of you have). Let's hope that the next administration turns back the tidal wave of executive branch power accretions. Incidentally, there are several candidates for president in both major parties whom we cannot hope to expect will turn back that tide. Perhaps not surprisingly, those candidates are indicated in national polls as being the most popular candidates for their political parties. Who makes these polls? Are they accurate? Are we really still that stupid?

How perpetually unfortunate.

Bush as Hitler: An Ode to Springdale Bum

2007-06-14T12:05:00.000-06:00

It may be that people disagree with George W. Bush as regards the Iraq war. I happen to. But for anyone to make a comparison between Bush and Hitler reveals in the comparer a daftness beyond description. When one goes further by saying that since Bush is Hitler we must hate the troops, it reveals the purely unthinking essence of the cancerous anti-Bush doctrine.

When the 222nd Field Artillery was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and 2006, we were augmented by members of the 145th Field Artillery. On June 12, we returned the favor. A lot of my good friends are headed for Iraq via Ft. Bliss, Texas.

So it don't sit too good when my friends and I are compared to Adolf Hitler's storm troopers. One may disagree with George Bush's policies as regards the Iraq war, but Bush is not Hitler. Nowhere close. What an inanity then, that "Springdale Bum" says that Bush is Hitler and we are Nazi storm troopers.

A German instructor of mine at Brigham Young University knows what it was like to live in the time of Hitler. He explained to us what it meant to be forced to belong to the Hitler Jugend and how any dissent was punished by disappearance and death. Bush has made several mistakes--but Bush is no Hitler. Springdale Bum wouldn't have lasted a day in 1940's Nazi Germany.

It was with some effort to control my composure when I said goodbye to my good friend and my son's baseball coach last Thursday at his last baseball game. He won't be at the game tonight, because he's on his way to Iraq. As my wife and I walked hand in hand from the ball park to the parking lot a week ago, we knew exactly what he and his wife were going through. And in a big way, we were glad that it was not us going through that torment again.

Here's the pertinent portion of Springdale Bum's comments to the article about the departure of the 145th:

..let me put your "I support the troops but not the war" stance to a test:

I'm a German citizen living in rural Bavaria in 1939 and while I think Hitler is a warmonger and that raping Poland and setting up a puppet government there to exterminate and root out anti-German "insurgents" is very bad, maybe evil, I still support our troops! While what they're doing in that country is probably very wrong and inviting disaster upon our land, by golly they are still OUR boys after all and I SUPPORT 'EM!

My position is that I don't support illegal and unnecessary wars. If I don't support the mission I CAN'T support the troops. The only true way to support the troops is by insisting that they all come back home to our shores immediately. Anything short of that is moral cowardice.

What is moral cowardice is to use a forum that is sure to be read far and wide by family members of the deployed as a knife in the back of all of them as they try to make sense of how they will endure the worries and struggles of the next 14 months without their husbands and daddies.

No matter what you think about their leader, you cannot blame the troops for answering the call of duty. What is moral cowardice is to use such a forum to equate me and my friends with Hitler's nazi thugs.

Yep, Springdale. You are a bum.

Hopefully Samarra Doesn't Explode Again

2007-06-13T16:56:00.000-06:00

Last time the Al Askariya mosque in Samarra, Iraq was bombed, all hell broke loose. It happened again today. Hopefully this time both Shia and Sunni can work together to decry the imbecility of al Qaeda for perpetrating yet another in a long series of senseless attacks.

I was still in Iraq in February, 2006 when the al Askariya Mosque in Samarra was significantly damaged by bombing. The relative improvement in stability in Iraq up to that point was shattered by the sectarian hatred and violence that ensued. Deaths--civilian and military--which had been going down, suddenly went back up.

Today, 16, months later, it was attacked again. It appears that the damage was greater this time. However, so far there is guarded optimism that it will not incite the same bloodthirst that the 2006 attack did. Requests have been made for American troops to return to Samarra to help provide greater security.

[The Iraqi government] directly accused al-Qa'eda of efforts to "burn Iraq with the fire of sectarian strife" and added: "We call upon our Iraqi people to exercise self-restraint and not be dragged into reactions like those planned by the killers."

In his typically Jesse-Jackson-like way, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed the bombings on the Bush Administration.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, blamed America's continued presence in Iraq for the bombings.

It's just too, much, isn't it, to blame the people who are really responsible?

Sabotage in War to Save a Life

2007-06-13T08:35:00.000-06:00

Many people are dismayed by the deaths of more than 3,500 American soldiers in Iraq, thinking their deaths have been in vain. Considering one unused technology, which could have thwarted many of these deaths, I am starting to agree with them.

Is sabotage of one's enemy in wartime ethical? Of course. Deception is one of the best tools in the arsenal of a winning military force.

The Improvised Explosive device is the most deadly killer of American soldiers. In 2004, we could have likely greatly curbed the number of such deaths, if we had gone ahead with some sabotage technology:

The insurgents who kill our young soldiers are ruthless, but we have sometimes been cautious in our response. Take the question of targeting bomb makers: There may be an unlimited supply of explosives in Iraq, but there is not an unlimited supply of people who know how to wire the detonators. In 2004, CIA operatives in Iraq believed that they had identified the signatures of 11 bomb makers. They proposed a diabolical -- but potentially effective -- sabotage program that would have flooded Iraq with booby-trapped detonators designed to explode in the bomb makers' hands. But the CIA general counsel's office said no. The lawyers claimed that the agency lacked authority for such an operation, one source recalled.

Instead of having short-circuited one of the least discriminating killers (probably more civilians are killed than soldiers by IEDs), we spend a great deal of time defusing a plethora of bombs that might not have been placed.

A fair number of roadside bombs are placed by poor Iraqis just trying to make a buck. It's easy, it pays well, and it pays even better if your bomb disables equipment--and especially if it kills US troops. If a sudden rash of unexplained IED-setter deaths had occurred in 2004, these people would have found other sources of income.

Not only would the sabotaged IEDs have been "deactivated", there would be far fewer of them being emplaced today.

JFK Plot Just Another Episode of "Keystone Cops"?

2007-06-04T12:57:00.000-06:00

The New York Times didn't think that the plot against John F. Kennedy Airport was important, apparently. Do you? I do. It doesn't matter if the latest attempt to attack America seemed to be just another episode of Keystone Cops.

The Times apparently put the story somewhere around page 30 in hard copy this morning, deeming it not very significant. Does it matter that the plotters were nowhere near being able to carry out their plot? Does it matter that they would very likely not have succeeded in causing nearly as much damage as they had hoped? Does it matter that there is no evidence that they were affiliated with al Qaeda?

No.

What matters is that they are plotting against us. What matters is that they are trying to attack us.

Back in 2003, the average insurgent in Iraq couldn't shoot straight, let alone attack in any kind of formation. Back then, he couldn't camouflage his roadside bombs very well, either. Even if we didn't take the insurgency seriously in 2003 Iraq, we would be foolish not to take the budding insurgency in the United States in 2007 seriously.

They were Keystone Cops once, not being able to get hardly anything right. But they have learned. They have innovated. And they have put to use new technologies. They know how to disguised their explosive ordnance now. They know how to attack in formations. They are now very deadly.

So maybe, for now, we have Keystone Cops on American soil. But, unfortunately, it won't last. The worst thing we could do is say that because the Fort Dix Six and the JKF Four are Keystone Cops that we have nothing to worry about.

Of course we do. We must be vigilant.

Breaking the PBS Log Jam

2007-05-28T17:26:00.000-06:00

An unprecedented, but well-needed compromise has been reached to allow the film "Islam vs. Islamists" to be made available to the public.

There is no doubt that PBS is a much more popular outlet for documentary films than is Oregon Public Broadcasting, to whom the film "Islam vs Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center", has been released. Now, however, it will see the light of day, and one of the great fallacies of Islam will likely be shattered with the exposure of this film--that all Muslims hate America and think that liberty is antithetical to Islam.

The 52-minute film contends that moderate Muslims are being intimidated by radical Islamists in several Western democracies, including the United States.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting stepped in when PBS wrongly concluded that the film did not meet documentary standards. And my uncle is a monkey. Several individuals who have seen the film, including 8 Congressmen, felt that the film was superbly done, and that it filled an important void not filled by any of the segments that were ultimately chosen by PBS for its "America at a Crossroads" series.

Everyone has some bias. I suspect that the producers of Islam vs Islamists will present a biased perspective. But how can a perspective be otherwise. Our opinions and our reportage are affected by what we know and what we see.

Now at least, everyone will get a chance to see and assess for themselves the quality and the bias of the film. I imagine that both will be as least as good as the usual PBS fare. It can't possibly be worse than what passes for reporting on the nightly news.

How Many Muslims are there in the US?

2007-05-24T19:30:00.000-06:00

For a while now, we've been under the impression that there were 6 or 7 million Muslims in the United States. A scientific survey can only identify 2.35 million. What implications does this have?

I recent study by the Pew Research Center found out that there are far fewer Muslims in America than the Council on American Islamic Relations has alleged. Does this mean less threat of terrorism? Why would CAIR inflate the numbers? Investor's Business Daily has an opinion:

But it's a wildly inflated guess manufactured by CAIR, something the media could have easily refuted all these years if they dared — simply by deconstructing CAIR's unscientific methodology.

Until now, finding reliable data for Muslims in America has been hard because the Census Bureau does not survey creed. So CAIR's fuzzy math went unchallenged, even though the "respected scholar" it hired to lead its "study" wasn't a trained demographer. In fact, as a CAIR board member, he wasn't even independent.

Worse, the Muslim professor admitted the number he arrived at for CAIR was a "guesstimation" that magically and conveniently matched the size — and potential political clout — of the Jewish population in the country, also estimated at 6 million.

Until now, the perception was that CAIR spoke for several million Muslims and could rally them to boycott a company or to vote as a bloc to swing an election if it didn't get its way. Officials feared the group because they thought it could marshal an Islamic juggernaut. The threat alone has caused many to back down from criticism or policies CAIR didn't like.

I don't understand CAIR's motives well enough. Looks like I have found a new focus of study. Their web site seems pretty friendly, but I guess we'll see.

Learning to Hate from an Interesting Source

2007-05-21T17:05:00.001-06:00

It is interesting that hatred between various religious sects in Iraq has gotten worse since the US arrived in 2003. Interestingly enough, western influence seems to have caused similar problems in India.

I am in Chicago this week, attending a computer conference. On this trip, I have had the good fortune of meeting two Indian men--one who is a Muslim, and one who belongs to the Hindu religion. Their similarity of social perspective is very striking.

I met Zaqardi while flying from Salt Lake City to Chicago. I asked him if there is a great deal of animosity and bloodshed between Muslims and Hindu followers in India. he said that it was not as bad as people in the west think it is. Interestingly, though, he pointed out that animosity does flare up regularly around elections, when--rather than accentuate their own strengths--the various candidates begin speaking epithets against their opponents in order to gain votes. I wonder where they learned that from?

Today at lunch, I had a fascinating conversation with Devdatt. I asked him the same questions. He agreed that the problems between Islam and Hindu are very exaggerated in the western press, but that there was a time when little if any animosity existed between the two great faiths. From his perspective, it was when the Brits came to India to exercise their benevolence, that a hatred between Muslim and Hindu was struck. Hmmm. Didn't they do that in Iraq once, as well?

We pause now for this message: Ron Paul is right.

I suggested to Devdatt that America and the west would do better off if we would mind our own business. He agreed so readily that he could not contain his laughter, which had the effect of dislodging a portion of his partially-chewed sandwich from his mouth. He also agreed that if America would stop tilting at every windmill in the world, the world would actually be better off simply observing and learning from America's example.

P.S. -- Vote for Ron Paul!

The Right Balance: Iraq Memories, Rocky/Hannity Debate, and "Free the Film"

2007-05-19T11:21:00.000-06:00

I had the good fortune of appearing on The Right Balance again yesterday. We discussed what it's like to have been home from Iraq for nearly a year, who won the Rocky/Hannity Debate, and whether PBS will Free the Film. Click "Read More" to be able to hear the segments.

In the first segment, instead of giving a "blatant capitalist plug" (one of Greg's favorite Greg-isms), I gave his show one. Greg's show, despite its not being as big as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, is in my opinion the best talk show out there. Click below to find out why.

Greg asked me to talk about my memories of Iraq, which, after being home for nearly a year, are much more poignant than I thought they would be. I still have a great concern for the successful transition to liberty of the Iraqi people.

Following a false start, I explained to Greg Allen my perspective of the Rocky Anderson/Sean Hannity debate of a couple weeks ago, including that I think Rocky won the debate, and that although Sean made some good points, I think he makes a living being a buffoon.

Below is a portion of the last segment, where I talked about the importance of PBS making available the documentary segment entitled "Islam vs. Islamists", which I have written about here , here, and to some extent here.

Below are links to my previous interviews on The Right Balance.

March 23rd, with Greg, as well as Dave Jeffers, whose son Eddie is currently serving in Ramadi, Iraq.
My first ever radio interview on Thursday, March 8, 2007. (See if you can tell if I am nervous.)

Ron Paul is Right About Iraq

2007-05-17T19:21:00.000-06:00

Rudolph Giuliani claimed after the GOP presidential debate on Fox News that Ron Paul sounded like a Democrat in his response with regard to American foreign policy and the war in Iraq. It doesn't matter which party you come from if your ideas make sense.

Rudolph Giuliani is harboring a deep-seated Republican blind spot when it comes to Jihad and the Middle East. It is that Jihadists would never use the rationale of attacking the United States because of our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. Of course they would. Ron Paul stated as much in the GOP debate May 15th, and he's right.

I claimed her previously that the main reason we were attacked on our soil is because of the way Jihadists perceive and resent our debauchery. Clearly, however, our foreign policy for the last 50-odd years plays a distinct role in their animosity toward us, as I have written here as well.

Barry Lando's book, Web of Deceit lays the problems of foreign intervention out well. Another excellent book on the subject is After Jihad by Noah Feldman.

I agree with what Ron Paul said in the GOP debate earlier this week. But I'm not sure what to make of it yet, particularly when he said elsewhere that he would "bring our troops home as soon as possible". I wish I knew what "as soon as possible" means to him.

See what I wrote about it on Simple Utah Mormon Politics.

Here's a CNN interview where he talks about it just a bit more:

Iranian Complicity in the Iraqi Insurgency

2007-05-17T10:41:00.000-06:00

The evidence continues to mount that Iran is very involved in fostering the Iraqi insurgency. All sorts of weapons are being recovered by coalition forces that have the signatures of Iran and beyond.

Richard Miniter recently spent several days in Iraq. He traveled to various remote areas of the country and interviewed several Iraqi civilians, Iraqi government leaders, insurgents being detained, and US soldiers. He reported on his stay on The Right Balance with Greg Allen this morning.

The sense that he got, because of visiting with the people and from his own observation was that outside of Baghdad, electricity and running water are in much more plentiful supply than they were during the Saddam era.

His study of terrorism and insurgencies indicates that insurgencies to do not succeed unless they have outside help. Interestingly then, several of the Iraqi people he communicated with are increasingly blaming Iran with fostering the insurgency.

Below is a video segment with a US Army Major who explains what they have been finding with increasing regularly in the Anbar province. Many rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, and explosively formed penetrators bear distinct evidence of having been manufactured in Iran. Others of these same and other weapons appear to be Chinese-made, having been repainted and renumbered, likely by Iranians.

When Truth Becomes Totalitarian

2007-05-12T11:55:00.000-06:00

Nearly every religion that has ever existed believes that it has the ultimate truth. Jihadism, however, is another in a long line of religions that indicate how that claim can go very wrong when it forgets that people have a right to choose what they believe the truth to be.

You probably didn't know that there exists a dramatic controversy as to whether the truth of Islam should be a requirement for everyone. Since perhaps the 1970's, when Middle Eastern Studies departments of various universities became co-opted by easy money from those who didn't want the truth to get out, it's been very difficult to see the juxtaposition of moderate Muslims with radical Muslims.

Why do you never (at least seldom) hear moderate Muslims speak out against Jihadist Islam? Because the radical Muslims cannot afford to have you know that there is a controversy. They cannot have you know two realities:

1. That radical Islam seeks the subjugation of all peoples, and that it will not be content simply for the United States military to leave Middle Eastern soil. Claims to the contrary are simply convenient smoke screens.

2. That moderate Islam seeks liberty, freedom of choice, and democratic representation for people of all religions.

This is why it is so important, as I have written recently, to "Free the Film".

Jihadists claim to be under attack everywhere--not just by the United States. Radical Muslims attack nearly everywhere as well--not just against the United States. But more importantly, radical Muslims claim to be under attack from Muslims who disagree with them. Their most concentrated and methodical attack, therefore, must be against moderate Muslims who do not agree with them. They claim, therefore, that not all those who claim to be Muslims really are islamic. Like Nazis and Communists, they can brook neither dissent nor even discussion from the moderates of their faith, because if the moderates are proven right, Jihadism as an ideology will have been proven to be an utter failure and a fraud.

The church that I belong to--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--believes that, although other churches have some truth, it contains the entire truth, or at least the ability to understand that truth through ongoing revelation from God. We also believe, though, that every person is free to choose whether or not to believe the Church's teachings. Coincidentally, I have reason to believe that this is a similar concept of truth to what Muhammad taught with regard to Islam.

Nearly every religion teaches that it has the market cornered on truth. Islam teaches this. Catholicism teaches this. So do all the Protestant offshoots of Catholicism. I'm reasonably sure that most of the Oriental religions teach the same concept.

I once had a discussion with a friend about wars and history. He commented that all wars and oppression are religion-based. I suggested that Communism was responsible for more deaths than all wars combined. His reply was that Communism is a religion in and of itself. Semantically, he has a point, but his point obfuscates the reality that true religion believes that men are free to choose what they will be and believe.

In a way similar to Communism, Nazism, and the other political -isms, the Catholic Church developed a totalitarian nature in what we now know as the Dark Ages. Interestingly, Islam went through a phase of similar totalitarianism at about the same time. But whereas Christianity was able to correct its course, Islam has since been dominated by those who believe that because Islam is true, all people must be forced to believe it. Not even Muhammad taught that.

Free the Film!

2007-05-09T13:03:00.000-06:00

If a fact had been carefully hidden from the American public, and you were a public broadcasting service, wouldn't you want to make the public aware of it? Apparently not if you're PBS. Why? Because of the entertainment value that accrues from an America-vs-Islam perspective that you want to maintain? I wish I knew.

I recently sent an e-mail to the Ombudsman of PBS, asking him why PBS would not air the film "Islam vs. Islamists". Several people have viewed the finished product, and think it is not only very pertinent but also very professionally done. My correspondence said:

I recently found out that PBS will not be showing the film "Islam vs. Islamists" as part of the "America at a Crossroads" series. Islam vs. Islamists would make a unique contribution to our understanding of Islam--something that no other episodes that have been included in the series would tell--by showing that there are many Muslims who support democracy and liberty. With whom do I correspond to express my displeasure at the fact that "Islam vs. Islamists" has been spiked?

I heard guest Martin Burke on The Right Balance this morning explaining the motivations behind PBS' spiking of the film. The producers and advocates of "Islam vs Islamists" has started a website called FreeTheFilm.net. Instead of providing a balanced view of moderate vs. radical Islam, PBS included in its "America at the Crossroads" lineup a film produced by PBS own Robert MacNeil. Instead of illustrating the divide between moderates and radicals, MacNeil's is essentially a hit piece that praises the radical facets of Islam and denigrates America in the process. Several members of Congress have requested that, because it is so balanced, PBS air the documentary. The likelihood of that is very slim. And more problematically, PBS owns the broadcasting rights. For now, you can download the movie trailer, and request a copy of the DVD (should it ever become available, PBS?) on FreeTheFilm.net.

By the way, the PBS Ombudsman's response to my e-mail was the following:

Dear Mr. Staheli:

Thank you for writing to PBS regarding your concerns about "Islam vs.
the Islamists." We welcome the opportunity to clarify that this film,
along with others, is still in the production and editing process.

"Islam vs. the Islamists" was developed as part of the AMERICA AT A
CROSSROADS initiative, a competitive grant project created to explore
our post-9/11 world. The film was chosen to move forward in the
production process because it offers an important examination of a
complex topic. The programming teams at WETA, the series' presenting
station, and PBS have asked the film's producers to meet our
editorial standards, which is a requirement for all the content that
is presented on our schedule. These standards are posted on our Web site at:

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_standards.html

The PBS programming staff, in collaboration with the independent
producers who partner with us, works very hard to ensure that all the
programs it distributes to public television stations meet high
standards of quality and journalistic excellence. This commitment
accounts for PBS' extraordinary track record in Emmy, DuPont
Columbia, and Peabody awards as well as PBS' long-standing position
as the most trusted public institution in America.

We look forward to continuing to work with the producers on the
development of this documentary. Other films that were not completed
in time for the April 15 premier are currently being scheduled to air
later this year. It is our hope that we will be able to add "Islam
vs. the Islamists" to this list.

Again, thank you for writing to PBS. We appreciate your concern for
our programming.

Sincerely,

Felicia
PBS Viewer Services

From dictionary.com, the definition of Ombudsman is:

A person who regurgitates the party line when receiving complaints from outside entities.

No...actually, I was sort of kidding. The real definition is this:

A person who investigates and attempts to resolve complaints and problems, as between employees and an employer or between students and a university.

Maybe PBS needs to get a new ombudsman.

Jihad Among Us: How Many Other Plots Are There?

2007-05-08T19:08:00.000-06:00

It's a good thing a New Jersey store clerk was suspicious. The FBI caught six Muslim men before they could do any damage, which it's clear they were capable of committing. It's clear that they were planning on it. How many more are there that we don't know about--plots that is?

There have been jihadists in our midst for years. They've infiltrated university Middle Eastern Studies departments, governments, and Islamist front organizatons, such as CAIR. It was only a matter of time before another murder plot erupted. It did last night when six Muslim men tried to purchase a plethora weapons from an FBI undercover agent.

A video store clerk, who was asked to duplicate a video that contained bragging about their intent to kill, notified authorities.

Apparently the video was rather explicit about what they intended to do.

"It doesn't matter to me whether I get locked up, arrested or get taken away," another defendant, Serdar Tatar, was alleged to have said. "Or I die, it doesn't matter. I'm doing it in the name of Allah."

Hopefully the reality is hitting both PBS, who refuses to air a documentary that distinguishes the majority of peaceable Muslims from the bloodthirsty ones such as the New Jersey 6, and liberals and others who think that it can't happen here.

Interestingly, no ties have been found between the 6 men and al Qaeda. In an era of internet technology, says Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris, this is exactly as al Qaeda would have it. Fomenting of rage among Muslim men everywhere, who then easily find their ideas and instructions on various web sites and then attempt to unilaterally commit mayhem in the name of Allah.

We need to be vigilant. We should also let and encourage the majority of Muslims, who abhor jihad, to be vigilant as well.

It Continues to Work in Ramadi

2007-05-08T12:42:00.000-06:00

Despite occasional setbacks, parts of Iraq's Anbar Province are trending toward peace. This occurs as Sunnis in the Anbar heartland realize that al Qaeda does not have Anbar's best interest at heart.

While I was in Ramadi, a change in sentiment began to occur. That sentiment is coming substantially to fruition 18 months later.

More and more Iraqis in the Anbar province have had enough of al Qaeda's crap. Police and military forces are beefing up in Ramadi and other cities and towns, and they're working closely with American forces to "clear, hold and build". It seems, over the past two or three months, to be working.

Here's the story of Saif Sahed

As recently as two months ago, U.S. forces didn't dare stake out the Al Tash neighborhood of this insurgent stronghold in Al Anbar province. Enter 22-year-old Saif Sahed, a go-getter recruit for the Provincial Security Force, a new auxiliary police unit that offers hope for at least a bit of stability in the mean streets of Ramadi.

Sahed lives in Al Tash, the kind of neighborhood where everyone knows everyone and newcomers are immediately noticed — and in recent years often have been insurgents.

"If I find strangers or strange cars, I go to tell my officer. Last week we found some who were insurgents and they were detained," Sahed said matter-of-factly. "The important thing is to make my neighborhood safe."

Because Sahed is young and illiterate, he ordinarily would not qualify for the Iraqi army or police. But for the last several weeks, he and his ragtag cohorts, wearing castoff army fatigues and numbering about 2,200, have filled crucial intelligence-gathering, patrol and checkpoint functions in the new provincial force.

Local residents find people that don't belong there, and get rid of them. In the case of an American soldier who was injured in a bomb blast recently, it didn't take the Ramadians long to ferret out the insurgent who had caused the blast.

"We could have never developed that kind of actionable intelligence that fast," said Lt. Jimm Spannagel with the Army 1st Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade. "The PSF [Provincial Security Force] speaks the same language, establishes rapport with the locals and inspires trust. It's allowing us to extend our reach."

Enlistments have grown, and the number of uniformed Iraqi police officers and provincial troops on Ramadi's streets has multiplied to 6,700 from only 200 in July. Security has improved correspondingly.

From an average of 30 insurgent attacks per day in December, such assaults had fallen to an average of fewer than four by last month,

Politics aside, I dream of the day when I can return to al Anbar in a time of peace. I pray each day that peace and liberty will succeed in Iraq. People like Saif Sahed and his friends are the ones that will make it happen.

The Irony of Turkish Protest

2007-05-07T14:15:00.000-06:00

Hundreds of thousands of Turks protested Sunday against an Islamist candidate for president. Why? Out of fear that the Islamists will destroy representative democracy.

It's the second mass demonstration in two weeks. The first protest brought out 300,000 people. This one had as many as 700,000. One protester said

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

Turkey has for several decades been democratic. It is worried by many that the ruling party is attempting to change that:

Some 700,000 Turks waving the red national flag flooded central Istanbul on Sunday to demand the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey's leaders threatened to destroy the country's modern foundations.

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

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

Is it okay to ban a candidate because that candidate's election would almost surely result in the banning of all other political parties? While many Americans felt this way about Communism, it was not banned in America, but what might have happened if it had become a prominent American political party?

At the very least, America should butt out of this controversy and let the Turks decide.

Hopefully, as well, the protests will incite enough people to come to the polls so that dictatorial Islamic intentions will never see the light of day.

Interestingly, other sources are claiming only that "more than 10,000" protesters participated on Sunday. Well, yes...I guess 700,000 is "more than 10,000".

"We Do Not Torture"

2007-04-28T10:56:00.000-06:00

The United States was instrumental in helping to establish international rules prohibiting torture. What are the implications if the United States is violating these rules? How much worse is it if we claim to not be violating these rules simply through semantic slight of hand?

A recent post by Richard Warnick on OneUtah comments on the 60 minutes interview with former CIA director George Tenet. I watched the preview segments on their site. It was interesting that, three times, Mr. Tenet adamantly said "We do not torture." I have seen some allegations in the news about torture, although I will admit that I haven't looked very hard, especially while I was in the military (I retired in December 2006). Richard's comments inspired me to start looking a little harder. Another post on OneUtah by Deanna Taylor was the one that got me thinking: if the military really is recruiting by exposing our youth to the gory 'glories' of American armaments, why wouldn't there be a least some who think that it's okay to torture non-Americans.

I came across a book in the Brigham Young University library entitled Oath Betrayed, and authored by Steven H. Miles, M.D. I am about half finished with the book as I write. I am reserving full judgment until I find more facts, but if what Dr. Miles alleges is true, far more individuals should have been punished with far more stringent sentences, and the Bush administration and America have much for which to be embarrassed.

The United States was instrumental in establishing international rules requiring that under no circumstances can governments or their agents engage in torture for any reason. The Geneva Convention makes it clear that all individuals are to be regarded this courtesy, not simply those clearly representing nations at war with the United States, but everyone else as well. They can be held as enemy prisoners of war, but under all circumstances they must be treated humanely.

Simply because other nations have engaged in and continue to engage in torture does not give the US any permission to engage in the same practice. If the United States is being held to a higher standard in this regard, then so be it. I am proud that we would be held to such a standard. When we violate the standard, our attempts to spread the blessings of liberty around the globe ring much less than hollow.

Very likely contrary to what many believe, torture appears not to have been limited to just a handful of personnel at the Abu Ghraib facility. Nor was it likely limited just to Abu Ghraib, nor even to Iraq. The following is a non-exhaustive list of the types of "interrogation tactics" used by US military (and non-military) personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay:

Withholding food
Exposure to extreme hot or cold temperatures
Bombardment with "music" and other loud noises
Sleep deprivation
Isolation for long periods of time
Forcing prisoners into stress positions (in at least some cases to include hanging them by their arms suspended behind their bodies)

If President Bush is not aware that these kinds of actions are occurring, he is not mentally fit to hold the office of President of the United States. If he is aware, he should be making every such offense public, he should be, as the chief executive, enforcing American and international law when it comes to prohibition of torture, and he should apologize to every person and their families to whom torture has happened.

Torture is in essentially all cases counterproductive. It presents the following problems:

1. Evidence garnered through torture are in all cases suspect, as very often those being tortured provide any sort of information (usually false) so that they can stop being tortured.

2. Torture is counterproductive, as it alienates the population the torturing agency was allegedly sent there to serve.

3. It harms those who commit it (with reactions similar to and often worse than Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and the overall society that condones it.

4. It alienates those who under normal circumstances would come forward with helpful information.

5. It becomes a tool to punish those who are weak, regardless of their innocence, as well as

Feelings of confusion and hatred on the part of those tortured are exacerbated when medical personnel are present. Dr. Miles' research provides substantial evidence that in many cases such US personnel were on hand to observe such treatment and to periodically ensure that prisoners were still in good enough health to continue being "interrogated". In some cases their presence was not enough--prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba have died under such interrogation tactics. Sometimes their bodies were unceremoniously dumped at the local morgue, and in other cases their bodies were buried in close proximity to the prison. In such cases, family members were never apprised of the fate of their fathers and brothers.

Postscript: When the pictures of Abu Ghraib torture first became public knowledge, radio producer Rush Limbaugh defended the torturers by saying that they were blowing off steam and that kind of thing happened at a Madonna or Britney Spears concert. What an inane statement!

While viewing the Tenet preview segments on 60 Minutes, I also came across a segment regarding Joe Darby, whose revelation of images of torture began the revelations of some of what happened in Abu Ghraib. I salute him as a very brave American. Unfortunately, though, many of his townsfolk consider him a traitor to America. He has had to move from his boyhood hometown. Some of his family members even refuse to talk to him. While he did the right thing, they are a disgrace.

Observations About "The Wall" in "Sadr City"

2007-04-26T17:13:00.000-06:00

Recently construction on a wall was begun and then quickly halted in the Adhamiyah section of Baghdad. Why? You might be interested to find out.

My first reaction to the cessation of the most recent wall being built in Baghdad was that if President al Maliki asks the Iraqi and US militaries to stop building the wall, then we should stop building it.

But then I found out that other walls have been built in other sections of Baghdad with no similar outcry. In fact, they have been welcomed. These walls are not just solid slabs of concrete, but rather have at regular intervals gates through which access can be granted in a more controlled way. Terrorist acts can thus be severely diminished. The citizens of Amiriyah and Ghazaliyah had no problem with greater safety.

So why did the citizens of Adhamiyah? Well, it's not actually clear that they did. Leaflets passed around the area in the days leading up to the wall construction begin date threatened death to those who cooperate with Americans.

Iraq the Model sheds some interesting light on the issue of "The Wall":

Yesterday leaflets were distributed in the streets of Adhamiya (or Azamiya, English doesn’t have the exact sound anyway). The leaflets — printed and distributed by persons unknown — called on residents to protest the building of the wall. Knowing that the only organized entity capable of such quick response to events in Adhamiya are either the insurgents or al-Qaeda strongly indicates that they were behind the planned protest. More important still is that it indicates they see the wall as a threat to their movement and ability to carry out their actions.

Interestingly as well: Iraq the Model points out that Adhamiyah is not Sadr City, as the media reported...

The Outcome of Collective Guilt Trips

2007-04-26T15:18:00.000-06:00

As examples from America and Israel show, the result of national guilt trips is not good. If we'd stop feeling guilty for everything--by the way, stop and look at who's making us feel guilty in the first place (!)--and stand up for our principles, there'd be a lot less violence in the world.

In his column today, Thomas Sowell had this interesting observation.

During the 1960s, the idea spread like wildfire that whatever you were lacking was someone else's fault — society's fault. If you were poor, whether at home or in some Third World country, you were one of the "dispossessed" — even if you had never possessed anything to dispossess you of.

The urban ghetto riots that swept across the country during the 1960s were all blamed on society. This view was formalized in a much-hailed report on urban violence by a national "blue ribbon" commission headed by Gov. Otto Kerner of Illinois.

This sweeping and heady vision made it unnecessary to stoop to anything so mundane as hard facts — which would have included the fact that urban riots struck most often and most violently when and where this collective guilt vision prevailed.

Southern cities, where at that time discrimination and poverty were more pronounced than in the rest of the country, were not nearly as often or as hard-hit as cities outside the South.

Dore Gold made the following note on page 5 of his recent book, The Fight for Jerusalem.

The Palestinians claimed the violence bgan as a spontaneous reaction to Sharon's visit to the temple mount. But Arafat's minister of communications...freely admitted the planned, organized nature of the campaign... "Whoever thinks the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong," he explained. "The intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations."

Palestinians aren't stupid. They can see someone's weakness when they intend on giving away the farm.

Israel in the summer of 2006 fell victim to public opinion, fueled by bought-and-paid-for Islamists like Juan Cole and al Jazeera. Israelis felt not nearly as much guilt as did the Americans, but the minor Israeli and major American guilt was milked for all its propaganda value by the anti-freemen in cheering the Hizballah troops.

Bullies do this. Packs of wolves exhibit this behavior. People who are in the wrong are emboldened by weak behavior from people who are right. My goodness we have a lot of guilty people in this country. It's ironic that when we stop being able to feel guilt for things that are really wrong, we have a craving to replace it with guilt that is misplaced. Another sad thing is that a lot of the rest of Americans, including such organizations as the Council on American Islamic Relations, are preying on our guilt. Is it any wonder poor excuses for human beings continue to target innocent Iraqi civilians? They salivate at our guilt. And we continue to exhibit it. It is not Bush's fault that people are killing each other in Iraq. Nor is it yours!

It's time to get our butts off our stinky couches, turn off our boob tubes, and start finding out what's really going on in the world today. We need to stop feeling guilty for the things we're doing right, especially when those who have destroyed in their own countries everything we hold dear are the ones making the accusations.

There are things to feel guilty for. Supporting a fledgling democracy is not one of them.

The Mistakes that Were, and the Mistakes that Weren't

2007-04-26T08:16:00.000-06:00

I don't like the Bush administration. I never voted for him, for which I feel proud and vindicated. There were several mistakes made by the Bush administration with regard to the war in Iraq. But we shouldn't let liberals have a pass on reality when they make some outlandish, unproven allegations.

I think I finally support Rocky Anderson and Dennis Kucinich and everyone else who wants an impeachment of Vice President Cheney to proceed. Because I'm sick and tired of all the innuendo, and it would be good to know what the facts are. Plus, it would stop congress from causing any more damage for a while.

The Bush Administration has made its share of mistakes--no question. I have pointed them out here on this site. But just for good measure, let me list them, along with some that don't relate to Iraq, including some that I haven't listed before.

1. Standing by his attorney general when his attorney general is a schmuck. The Clinton's had enough of the same kinds of personnel problems as Bush, by the way. I think that the Republicans (Specter doesn't count) don't generally play the part of good vultures. Democrats, on the other hand...

2. Not sending enough troops to Iraq. His generals told him that there needed to be more troops. But many of his advisors told him that it would be a cake walk. Wrong.

3. Disbanding the Iraqi military and government ministries from top to bottom. I wrote about this as being the greatest mistake in the Iraq war.

4. Not bowing to Democratic power when it comes to the obvious truths of global warming. Just kidding--I had to throw that one in! This is one thing he's actually doing a good job on.

5. Not explaining to the Iraqi people, and the American people for that matter, what our end goals are. Just not being a very good communicator overall.

6. Not pardoning border Agents Ramos and Compean, who did a magnificent job on the US-Mexican border, and who are currently being unjustly imprisoned. Not being a stronger advocate of keeping illegal immigrants from our country. Being an advocate of the North American Union superhighway.

7. Not planning for contingencies in Iraq. Not understanding (much less having and implementing) counter-insurgency tactics. Such as what happens after we get there? What if we don't find any weapons of mass destruction? What if suicide bombers start killing throngs of innocent Iraqi civilians?

That's definitely not a litany of his mistakes, but it highlights some of the worst. Now, on to the other part. Let's talk about what mistakes were not made, in light of the fact that allegations have been made that such mistakes were made.

I wish to reply to a letter to the Deseret News by BYU professor Warner Woodworth. One of the best classes I ever had at BYU was from Mr. Woodworth. Let's just say, however, that we don't necessarily agree politically. I include below one applicable paragraph from his opinion piece in DesNews, to which both of my barrels will respond.

Let me count a few ways Cheney has diminished our American ideals: using false premises for war, condoning illegal wiretaps on citizens, justifying Abu Ghraib, managing Halliburton unethically, continuing use of vulgarities, firing federal prosecutors who weren't "Bushie" enough, and on ad nauseam.

1. Using false premises for war. The claim that the Bush administration knew that Iraq possessed no WMD is the bedrock upon which nearly every other allegation against the war is made. What happens if the bedrock is shifting sand. We often think we knew a lot about something before it happened, when in reality, what we know now is what we came to know only after it happened. David Kaye, a United States lead inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, was sent to Iraq to seek out the WMD that the Bush administration claimed was there. Kaye went, because he was convinced that he would find something. He was shocked when he did not. Regardless of what might have happened to them or whether they were ever there, the fact that experts expected to find WMD shoots the 'Bush-lied' theory down.

2. Condoning illegal wiretaps. It is interesting to note that the Council on American Islamic relations initially raised concern about Bush administration wiretapping, before it caught on like wildfire in the liberal and media (woops, same thing) communities. Whether it's wrong or not (which hasn't been proven), it is important to remember that democratic administrations have used the same techniques. The Bush eavesdrops on conversations between Americans and suspected al Qaeda operatives. If he exceeds this mandate, he should be removed from office, but prove to me that he has rather than just making a boatload of claims.

3. Justifying abu Ghraib. Maybe what Mr. Woodworth is referring to is an allegation by Newsweek magazine that new tactics to fight the war on terror turned into a de facto justification for the tortures at abu Ghraib. The reality is so much more complicated that I don't know where to start. Let me just say that abu Ghraib happened because (1) there was not a clear counter-insurgency plan, and far too many Iraqi men found their way into prison than should have, and (2) there was a much smaller contingent of military police at abu Ghraib than should have been to handle the influx of prisoners.

4. Managing Halliburton Unethically. I saw how efficient Halliburton was when I served in Iraq. I cannot think of too many companies that could have done the job that Halliburton has done there. Can you? Halliburton got the contract because they were deemed by the government to be the most qualified.

5. Continuing use of vulgarities. Did Mr. Woodworth think this about President Clinton and members of his administration? Vulgarities are vulgar, for sure, but football coaches use them all the time, for pete's sake. We shouldn't use them, I agree, but I am not qualified to cast the first stone. Maybe Mr. Woodworth is, but isn't this just litany-padding to add such a charge?

6. Firing Attorneys. He had more right to fire them than the Clinton administration had a right to fire the people in the travel office!

I assume "ad nauseam" includes the standard "blood for oil" claim, as well as the "Guantanamo is eeevviilll" claim as well. But I've seen no proof of these either.

So let's get these impeachment proceedings proceeding! I want to know what the truth is. Somehow, I don't think the liberals really want too, though. Because they already have their minds made up. And to think that perhaps they are being led by a ring in their nose which was installed by the truly patriotic Council on American Islamic Relations.

It cannot be a matter of us hating someone so bad that we expense our own military members simply because we want to win a political battle. If these things are true, then let's find them out in impeachment proceedings. But otherwise, let's keep our yaps shut. The terrorists are listening. Our politics are their "CSI", "Survivor", and "Simpsons" all rolled into one.

Who in the World is Abdullah al-Muhajir?

2007-04-22T19:37:00.000-06:00

I have heard a lot about Jose Padilla in the last few months, including that he was mercilessly tortured, that he is an American citizen being held without being charged, that George W. Bush has been instrumental in his capture and torture, and that he has done nothing wrong. So I decided to do a little research.

Jose Padilla's real name, after he became a convert to Islam following one of his many stays in prison, is now Abdullah al-Muhajir. Since taking a a vow of non-violence in prison, Padilla/al-Muhajir has committed or been trained to commit several acts of violence. He also left his American wife and children to become more engaged in radical Islam in Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

On one of his visits to Afghanistan, he became a member of the al Farouq terrorist training camp, which is affiliated with al Qaeda. When he returned to the US in 2002, the FBI was waiting for him. Following an interview, he was arrested and held as an enemy combatant due to his having worked with al Qaeda.

One of the plots that he had not yet been able to carry out before being arrested was to acquire apartments on lower floors of high-rise apartment buildings--apartments serviced by highly explosive natural gas. The intent was to leave a flame source inside the apartment, sealing it off substantially, and allow the gas to build up. Eventually the gas would explode, possibly killing hundreds of high-rise tenants. The intent was to acquire apartments in as many as 20 buildings.

As a young Puerto Rican thug in Chicago, Padilla had a rap sheet a mile long. After changing his name to a more peaceful one, his encounters with law enforcement officials continued unabated.

He was long involved with the Masjid al Imam mosque in Florida, which has been a front for the Benevolence International Foundation, a terrorist fund-raising instrument whose aims have been less that benevolent. Evidence was discovered in Bosnia that BIF was funneling money to al Qaeda.

Spiking Islamic Democracy

2007-04-17T13:59:00.000-06:00

When's the last time you sent in your donation to PBS? Hint for US Citizens: if you haven't filed your tax return, you have until midnight tonight (unless you live in the Northeast).

Update: April 18th How National Public Radio led the charge in the 1990's in dismissing the threat of jihad.

Radical Islamists do not support democracy. From his newest book, The War of Ideas, Walid Phares writes:

Salafists, Wahabis, Takfiris, Tablighis, and other Sunni Islamists reject the concept of pluralism, and radically oppose the rule of the people. Only Allah and his teachings...are the basis for governance. [Shias] installed an Islamic Republic in Iran, but its mandate is believed to be divinely inspired and not subject to the approval of civil society. (p. XVIII)

It appears that Radical Liberalists in the United States want you to think that all Muslims share this sentiment. This is not true. But PBS is doing its best to keep you from knowing that.

Due to pressure from Islamist groups, PBS, who unfortunately owns the rights to the film entitled "Islam vs. Islamists", has shelved it, claiming that the reasoning for the shelving is because "it needs work", and that it might still be shown in the future. Did you just see that pig fly by?

Even more bizarre is the claim that the film would "demonize Islam" when in reality the result is the exact opposite. Many Muslims prefer democracy to the "7th Century" drivel that God makes all the rules and the radical lunatics are to enforce them. How PBS finds this demonizing is beyond me.

"I am incredulous that PBS would invest so much of our tax money into contracting professionals for a documentary on a subject -- the struggle for the soul of Islam -- which is one of the most vital debates of the 21st century and then censor its release," said Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the Arizona-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy who is featured in the documentary.

Mr. Jasser visited with Greg Allen on The Right Balance this morning, expressing his dismay that a tax-funded organization would act this way.

I agree. As surprised as I am by the liberal reaction to the attempt to foster democracy in the Middle East, this has to be one of the worst instances of spiking relevant insight into the process. I have come to the conclusion that American liberals think that Muslims are incapable of democracy. What a shallow, self-serving viewpoint.

Please contact the PBS Ombudsman, and let him know you want to see a documentary that shows that many Muslims prefer democracy. What's demonic or divisive about that?

Update April 18th: From his book Future Jihad, Walid Phares explains to us that we haven't been getting our tax money's worth for quite some time now.

More worrisome [than the lack of coverage of jihad strategy by private news networks] would be PBS, C-SPAN, and NPR. Funded by US taxpayers, these gigantic networks have dedicated less than 0.1 percent of content to what would become the main threat to the nation over the years. NPR would outdo every other medium: It actually aired more programs endorsing the apologists--those who denied a jihadi threat--than all other U.S. media combined. The pounding by NPR and the public networks over ten years further disguised the intensity of the Wahabi penetration [into American government and society]. (p. 177)

Here's some more information on the controversy from the CNS News service.

Climate Change and Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur

2007-04-17T07:27:00.000-06:00

Quiz question: Why are so many people being killed in Darfur of the Sudan? Answer: Global Warming. Of course. Global warming is the cause of everything!

Climate change is behind the effort to eradicate non-Muslims from Darfur, according to this story.

A violent conflict that has claimed more than 300,000 lives in Darfur is one of the early signs of threats to global security prompted by climate change, a senior representative of the British government warned Monday on the eve of a special United Nations debate.

“Like most conflicts, it’s complex. It results from an interplay of a lot of social and political and possibly ethnic factors,” said John Ashton, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s special ambassador on climate change.
“But there is absolutely no doubt that it’s a more difficult conflict to deal with, because on top of all that, you’ve had a 40 per cent fall in the rain fall in northern Darfur over the last 25 to 30 years again in a way that’s entirely consistent with what the climate models would have told you to expect.”

Calling the issue "complex" not only waters down the clear reason for the cleansing, but is a brazen attempt to inject man-made global warming into a debate where it has no business being.

But whatever. It seems, then, that global warming has caused Islamic radicals to be just a bit more radical. Because the reason for the ethnic cleansing in Darfur, which, by the way, is far worse than anything in the former Yugoslavia, is Islamism.

According to the book Future Jihad by Walid Phares, Islamism took the upper hand in the Sudan due to a 1989 coup. That was one year before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With the coup, Sudan became only the second Sunni Islamist state in the Middle East, preceded by Saudi Arabia.

And then, with no warming, global warming struck with a vengeance! Or something.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming, entitled "The Truth".

Desiring a smoke screen for the Islamists' attempt to eradicate non-Muslims, Hassan Turabi invented an enemy, named John Garang, who was a Marxist and who could easily be believed to have been an ally of the former Soviet Union, whom the Islamists had defeated in Afghanistan.

On the smoky pretext, Mr. Turabi called leading Islamists from around the world to the 1st annual Islamic Conference on Global Warming. Or something...

According to Dr. Phares, there actually was a large conference of Islamists in Khartoum, Sudan in 1992. The PLO was there. The Baathists were there. The Iranians were there. Hizballah was there.

Based on Turabi's propaganda, Islamists came from everywhere to take part in the slaughter ordained of Allah. Since then hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims have been killed. Tens of thousands more have been sold into slavery across the Levant and beyond.

And to think that it was all because of global warming.

Anti-Americanism has Always been in Vogue

2007-04-14T16:47:00.000-06:00

With how bad the world--and many Americans--hate America today, you'd think it was all George W. Bush's fault. In reality, it's mostly democracy's fault. A lot of people don't like the fact that America taught people to think for themselves.

We protest not just against any nuclear weapons. We protest against America's.

We protest not just against any death penalty. We protest against America's.

We protest not against fanatic Jihadists who think it nothing to kill their fellow Iraqis and Muslims. It's America's fault.

Why? People have hated America nearly since its inception, because they despise liberty and free markets. The BBC delves into this fetish in a piece called "Death to US: Anti-Americanism Examined".

In the article I read on the subject, the author said

...this is not a recent migration brought on by Mr Bush. In May 1944 (just weeks before American GIs landed on the beaches of Normandy), Hubert Beuve-Mery, the founder of Le Monde newspaper - certainly no mouthpiece of the right - wrote this: "The Americans represent a real danger for France, different from the one posed by Germany or the one with which the Russians may - in time - threaten us. The Americans may have preserved a cult of Liberty but they do not feel the need to liberate themselves from the servitude which their capitalism has created. "

It is time that we understood that this attitude, this contempt for what democracy can do, is at the heart of at least some of the anti-Americanism we see in the world today.

The Cost of Abandonment

2007-04-14T10:04:00.000-06:00

The Tet Offensive was a major American defeat in the Viet Nam war, right? Wrong. It came to be seen as such because Walter Cronkite, John Kerry, and others convinced a significant portion of Americans that such was the case. From that point on, public opinion went downhill, and the ability of the US military to serve its purpose in Indochina went with it.

Then Richard Nixon became hounded by the Democrats. Seeing potential impeachment on his horizon, President Nixon resigned. Thereafter, there was no more stomach for the Viet Nam war. So we just packed up and left. And the Vietnamese lived happily ever after, right?

Wrong.

Liberals never cared about the Vietnamese. They only cared about winning. And that meant that that America had to lose in Vietnam. The only Vietnamese that liberals really ever cared about were the relatively few who were just like them--who lusted for power and domination over their fellow man.

American liberals got just what they wanted, and they never apologized for the mayhem. Because they won!

Following the unceremonious departure of America from Vietnam, thousands of Vietnamese were rounded up, tortured, and killed. Tens of thousands were forcibly relocated. Tens of thousands more fled the country on makeshift boats, many of which were not seaworthy, causing thousands more to die. The carnage of man's domination over man spilled over into neighboring Cambodia, where terrorists forced nearly everyone (but themselves) from their homes. Ultimately the lives of 2 million Cambodians were taken from them by the relative few who knew what was best for them. This amounted to nearly one third of the entire Cambodian population.

Abandonment is costly. Is Iraq different? It's pretty hard to say, but I think not. Will the same thing happen in Iraq when we leave? The likelihood is much greater that it will than is the likelihood that man is causing global warming. But which problem are liberals focused on?

I don't know for sure what would happen if the US and coalition forces exercised as precipitous an exit from Iraq as we did from Vietnam. But liberals don't care. Because they will have won.

The Tet Offensive was a major setback for the Vietcong--until Walter Cronkite convinced the American media, and the media in turn convinced the American people--that it wasn't. In much the same way, today, liberals highlight the negative incidents in Iraq, unfairly convincing a majority of Americans that Operation Iraqi Freedom has no chance for success. Our resolve is flagging in just the same manner as it did in Vietnam.

Because liberals don't care about Iraqis, except to use them as poster children when they are in pain. Liberals only care about winning. And in their minds, that means that America must lose the OIF campaign.

More Guantanamo Revelations

2007-04-06T19:10:00.000-06:00

More revelations are coming from the Guantanamo Bay facility about treatment of prisoners. And it's not pretty. If it's really happening, we should be outraged. But it's hard to tell because there is so much dissimulation when it comes to the facts.

Prisoners tell of being isolated for long periods of time. They speak of being physically abused. They speak of being mentally abused. They speak of having to sleep on stone floors with nothing but thin blankets.

Their torturers were becoming "aggressive and unstable". It became clear to some of them that if they didn't cooperate with their captors, they would not live to see the next day.

Because of such irrational behavior, the prisoners feel forced to admit their guilt, and any pictures of them at all are shown only in rare times of relaxation, when the cameras can catch smiles on their faces.

On at least one occasion, a group of prisoners was lined up along a wall, their heads blindfolded, and the thugs behind them could be heard loading their rifles. Several of this group of prisoners were sure that they were about to be executed.

For acts as despicable as these, the handlers at Guantanamo should be...wait...

Just a sec...

Oh, this happened in Iran? To British hostages?

Well, never mind. It's okay then.

No, it's really not. If someone did this to you, would you think it was okay?

"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'."

"After that comment someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut."

It's beyond the height of irony that liberals chastise the Bush administration for supposed torture in Guantanamo, but give the Iranian regime a free pass! If it's wrong, it's wrong. It doesn't matter who does it. So let's see, liberals, if you have any integrity.

Call the Iranians out! I dare you.

Whether or Not to "Insert [Ourselves] into an International Crisis"

2007-04-06T18:45:00.000-06:00

Prior to leaving for its two-week spring break, the US House of Representatives was not able to consider a resolution condemning Iran for taking 15 British hostages. The Senate passed a resolution of condemnation, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not let a similar resolution come to a vote in the House.

Pelosi's press secretary had this to say about the failure to introduce the resolution:

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

Shortly thereafter, Speaker Pelosi flew off to the Middle East to insert herself into an international crisis.

At least the whole Congress wasn't involved, I guess...

Do you think her insertion was "helpful"?

Iraqi Oil Contracts Likely Not to Go to Western Firms

2007-04-06T13:51:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure how this one will pan out, but it's interesting that CNN Money is reporting that Iraqi oil contracts will go not to the United States or other Western firms, but to companies from such places as China, India, Indonesia, and Viet Nam.

The Iraqi government is putting the finishing touches on the policy that will determine who gets those contracts, but are they doing this independently?

A couple of possible reasons exist for awarding the contracts to Asian firms:

An obligation to fulfill "agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government."
They did not participate in the UN sanctions against Iraq, and continued to work in Iraq's oil fields during that period.
The initial contracts awarded will be small, and western firms "are just biding their time".

Some claim that these contracts are proof that the Bush Administration was not in Iraq for the oil. However, the Bush Administration and representatives from the International Monetary fund had a chance to look at the draft law before it went to the Iraqi parliament.

The initial contracts are for relatively small volumes of oil. It is alleged that western firms are sitting back, waiting for when larger contracts are awarded.

It's too early to tell what's up.

Secretary of State Pelosi Solves Iranian Hostage Crisis

2007-04-05T14:26:00.000-06:00

The Associated Press implied in a story today that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was instrumental in getting the 15 British hostages released from Iran. That actually may be the case, but pay no attention to the 'man behind the curtain' which is that Speaker Pelosi's actions are bordering on treasonous.

Imagine if, during the civil war, Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax would have visited the south and negotiated behind Abraham Lincoln's back. Such chicanery as Mrs. Pelosi's has never before been attempted, and there are many who think that it can somehow have a healthy result.

It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Executive department to be the Commander in Chief during wartime. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Executive department to deal in affairs of state. By implication, even though she is only two heartbeats away from the presidency, it is the Constitutional responsibility of the Speaker of the House to keep their nose out of such business, especially when it comes to cavorting with a declared terrorist state.

These sentiments have nothing to do with whether the current Executive, George W. Bush is doing a good job. In fact, in most instances, I think he and his administration are doing a poor job.

But he is the president. If someone (several people) don't want him to be the President, because he lied or tortures people or says "nukyaler" or whatever, then they need to draw up impeachment proceedings. Far worse than the supposed problems being caused by the Bush Administration currently (one opinion I recently heard is that Americans have now killed 650,000 Iraqis, and that is a conservative estimate) is the absolute chaos that is brewing in America due to the thoughts of enough Bush haters who think Bush should either be thrown out of office or ignored, the Constitution apparently be damned.

Stop for a moment to think how vulnerable the United States becomes when, in effect, two diametrically opposed foreign policies are being promulgated in the most volatile region of the planet.

Terrorist groups have spoken, and they love what they are seeing.

It's working. Pandora is stirring. Pelosi, Syria's Bashar Assad, Iran's Ahmadinejad, and the terrorists they support are getting the last laugh. Yes they place blame for the capture and ill-treatment of the British sailors--on President George W. Bush.

When Britain and the European Union, who influence 40% of Iran's trade, had a chance to make a difference, they flinched.

A travesty.

Iranian Lunacy and the Counterattack Options Available to Us

2007-04-03T13:23:00.000-06:00

It is now becoming clear that the Iranian government is a pariah among nations. What's important to remember is that the Iranian people aren't. If, in reaction to the latest smooth move by the Iranian government, we attack Iran with guns and bombs, we will be taking exactly the wrong action.

Kenneth Timmerman was a guest commentator on The Right Balance with Greg Allen this morning, and he reminded us of this looming fact. Timmerman's sources inside Iran state that the kidnapping of the Brits was a carefully planned and coordinated effort. He reports that they are also "trolling" for any Americans they can find in Iran to hold as pawns as well. He also reminded us that many economic options exist for Britain and the world to put the thumb screws to Iran.

For example, forty percent of Iran's gasoline needs are provided from outside the country. Iran has very little refining capacity. It would not be difficult to shut of a significant portion of their resources.

The Iranian people are very pro-American. To attack Iran with military materiel would very likely cause them to turn against us.

Accent Radio Network News reported this morning the reaction of several Iranians to the kidnapping of the British Marines and sailors. Several Iranians were baffled by their government's decision to kidnap the Brits as Iran was not at war with them. Many rank and file Iranians wish their government would release the hostages posthaste.

As it stands, many Iranians are on our side. I hope the Bush administration doesn't go off half cocked again and give them something to hate us for.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis 28 Years Later

2007-04-01T09:28:00.000-06:00

The Iranians have taken hostages. And judging by the world's actions toward previous provocations, they're banking that we'll act just as stupidly as we did the last time. Will the United States use this event as another 'Gulf of Tonkin' provocation to attack Iran?

What are the chances that the British vessel from which 15 sailors were captured by the Iranian military was actually in Iranian waters? If you ask Rosie O'Donnell, that is a fact beyond dispute. I'm not so sure. But what is the chance that the Bush Administration will use the international incident to further fan the flames of American hatred toward Iran and use it as further provocation that we attack Iran? Fairly high, as they have already used a great many incidents as provocation to widen the Iraq war, and they have already made detailed plans for attack.

I hope that Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress do not abdicate their duty this time, but rather tell Bush that he does not have carte blanche authority to attack Iran.

Interestingly, President Jimmy Carter, in his attempt to be humanitarian, helped the current regime to gain power. The Ayatollah Khomeini's government killed more people in its first year than the Shah killed in its quarter century of rule.

But that is as beside the point as is the point that Bush lied to the American people to get us into Iraq. In both cases, the facts of the present require us to deal with them rather than worry and whine about what could have been. However, we still can stop what might be. And it is incumbent upon Congress to act with a firm resolve this time around.

The New American Magazine (linked above) makes the following interesting observations:

Denials notwithstanding, the evidence suggests that the Bush administration is fully committed to a “pre-emptive” war against Iran, possibly as early as April. Though the administration claims that it is pursuing all diplomatic means available to avert a war with Iran, President Bush has been concentrating naval, air, and missile forces on Tehran’s doorstep. Almost any provocation or pretext could now trip the hair trigger that has been put in place and unleash a full-scale war that would quickly dwarf the war in Iraq...

The build-up has been ominous. In early January President Bush deployed a Patriot Missile battalion from Fort Bliss, Texas, to the Middle East. Why? The Patriots are for shooting down missiles. But the Sunni insurgents don’t have missiles....

Which brings us to the gathering American armada in the Persian Gulf region. On February 20, the USS John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier, and its accompanying strike group joined the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier group in the Sea of Oman. The Stennis strike group also includes the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam and guided-missile destroyers USS O’Kane and USS Preble. The USS Nimitz carrier group is headed to the area, ostensibly to replace the USS Eisenhower. But there is good reason to suspect that rather than replace the Eisenhower, the plan may actually be for it to join the gathering naval firepower, which also includes British and Australian vessels.

In addition, U.S. Air Force units in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the region reportedly have been gearing up for major action. Special operations teams have also reportedly stepped up activities inside Iran over the past several months, including ops teams that provide laser guidance to direct precision bombs to their targets.

For now, I think Bush has made terrible mistakes in Iraq from which we can recover. But if he decides to attack Iran, I will conclude that he wants to create problems from which America likely can't recover.

9/11: An Islamic Counter Attack

2007-03-28T21:05:00.000-06:00

Following the attacks on America on September 11, 2001, many Americans divided themselves neatly into two camps. Camp 1 said, 'We deserved to be attacked because American government meddles in the affairs of too many other nations.' Camp 2 countered with 'We deserved to be attacked because God is punishing us for our sins.' The reality is somewhere in the middle, but interestingly there are hints of truth in the statements of both Camp 1 and Camp 2 .

Over the past several years I have worked with a few computer programmers who are from foreign countries. I've asked some of them what is their impression of America. What strikes me is their explanation of what their impression was of America before the came here, and how it has changed since they got here. Prior to coming to America their only perspective was what they saw at the movies and on television, which was (and still is) predominantly immoral. But when they came to America, they realized that our entertainment media reflected the reality for only a tiny sliver of our society, and that most Americans are basically good, honest, respectful, respectable people.

While I was in Iraq, one of my fellow soldiers told me of the experience of having been asked by an American reporter visiting Iraq if he had ever thought what it must be like to be an insurgent. I told my buddy at the time that my opinion would have been that I didn't give a [crap] what an insurgent felt like, because he has no business being an insurgent. Although I still think there is no excuse for killing innocent people, as insurgents often do, I now think it is interesting to delve into the thoughts of members of the insurgency. I find their thoughts are very rational. There are things that Americans and other westerners who have no ties whatsoever to the military have done to incite the Islamic insurgency.

Could 9/11 have been prevented? By many means. But there is one clear way that America could have avoided even the contemplation of being attacked. This way is presented clearly in the writings and sayings of every well-known representative of radical Islam. It is the reason why so many Muslims rejoiced on that poignant September day nearly 6 years ago.

The opinion of "Camp 1" is correct insofar that we were attacked because we have too much influence on other nations. Ironically, the influence that encouraged the 9/11 attackers was not that of American foreign policy as so many in Camp 1 believe. Rather it is the influence that many in Camp 1 themselves exert.

The perspective of "Camp 2" is correct insofar that we were attacked because of our sins. God was not our punisher, however. Radical Muslims anointed themselves to be.

Whether right or wrong, the reason that America was attacked on 9/11 is that the Islamic world feels like it was attacked first. They attacked us with airplanes because we first attacked them with debauchery.

To be continued...

Back on The Right Balance

2007-03-24T19:21:00.000-06:00

I was invited to appear on The Right Balance with Greg Allen again yesterday. We continued right where we left off a few weeks ago, and I was very pleased with the outcome. I hope you will be, too. We were able to talk about the spiritual aspect of the war on terrorism, and how our faith makes us want to serve.

Greg is a member of the Society of Quakers, the other guest, Dave Jeffers, is an Evangelical, and I am a Mormon. But it was an interesting meeting of the religious minds during the segment. Dave's son Eddie is currently serving in Iraq.

We agreed that everyone--Quaker, Evangelical, Muslim, Mormon, so on and so forth--is a child of God, and that we should treat one another as such.

We talked about how it seems, despite the problems with the war in Iraq, caused largely by the mismanagement of the Bush Administration, we feel like we're part of something big, something magnificent that can ultimately bring freedom to the people of Iraq.

We discussed the concept that everyone was born with a conscience, and nearly everyone can distinguish good from evil. And that nearly everyone yearns for freedom, because freedom feels good.

So take a listen. (It's broken up into 3 segments, because my hosting service charges me for larger than 10MB files!)

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

The best counter-insurgency tactic is to let the people know you care.

The second best counter-insurgency tactic is to let the people know you share their values.

Guantanamo is Eeeeeviiiil

2007-03-23T09:54:00.000-06:00

I'm going to go out on a limb here...I don't think torture is going on at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I haven't looked into it a great deal, but a lot of what I have seen is based on hearsay and assumption that the Bush administration isn't telling the truth.

Guantanamo Bay is one of the poster children of those who are against the war in Iraq. Allegations are thrown left and right that people at Guantanamo are being tortured. Matt Lauer, in a one-on-one interview with President Bush, clearly conveyed he thought the president was lying about torture when the President refused to discuss the way we interrogate terrorists. Let me say two things about that:

I don't believe it
If someone can convince me with evidence I will change my mind

Until then, I will believe administration officials, those US congressmen who have been there, and those military members who have served there that torture is not occurring in Guantanamo. I will not believe the United Nations, who has NOT been there.

Here's an attempt to impute evil to the Americans at Gitmo. To me it is not convincing.

The story linked above admits that the United Nations never even visited the facility to view the situation for themselves before stating that the United States is engaging in torture.

The healthiest claim made in the story is that we are force-feeding some people. Why? Because they are on hunger strikes, and if one of them successfully kills himself from lack of nutrition, you can guarantee that will be all over the news as 'proof' that Americans are torturing terrorists.

The story claims that because we are not at war we cannot hold enemy combatants for extended periods of time without trial. Hmmm... I'm pretty sure when I was over there I was in the middle of a war. From the looks of things, which happen to be improving, there are still a lot of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists who are trying to kill coalition forces and innocent Iraqi civilians.

I'm only hazarding a guess, but I'd call it war.

Rhyme and Reason Restored

2007-03-22T20:21:00.000-06:00

It seems like the war in Iraq has been somewhat of a generally muddled mess since the thunder runs of early 2003. It appears that that might be changing in one of the most difficult areas of the country--Ramadi in the Anbar province.

When I was in Ramadi, Iraq, it seemed like there was little rhyme or reason to the way we conducted operations. Patrols would go out and patrols would return to the operating base. Observation posts were always manned, but for the most part they were just observation posts--there was very little positive contact with the people. On a higher level there seemed to be progress; battalion and brigade commanders met with sheikhs and mayors and planned for the phased withdrawal of coalition forces.

But the results never seemed permanent.

In Ramadi today there is a different feeling. Coalition troops, including Iraqi military forces, as well as Iraqi police are beginning to see the fruits of labors that have a rhyme and a reason.

"When they told me I have to go to Ramadi, I told myself 'this is not good,' but now I believe it is better here than in Baghdad," said Alaa Mohammed, one of the Iraqi soldiers.

"The battalion is moving east, where the danger comes from. Building observation posts deny freedom of movement for the enemy," said Captain Kyle Sloan, Alpha company commander.

As a result, people within the ever-expanding safe zone are beginning to be able to live lives of increasing normalcy. Iraqi police are now able to operate with a modicum of order and independence. According to proven counter-insurgency tactics, American soldiers are developing relationships of trust with not only Iraqi military and public safety officials, but also with many other Iraqis.

To one side of the post, a school has reopened, and Marines say that more people are daring to venture out into the streets and that their attitude towards the Americans has changed for the better.

"Every squad has a favourite family. When on patrol, they are making a point of going to the house, see if they need anything, give stuff to the kids," said Corporal Joshua Barrett.

Excellent. That is what Serving Iraq is all about.

A New Low in Car Bombings

2007-03-21T13:54:00.000-06:00

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have never cared whether children were in the blast zone of one of their car bombs. Why should we be too surprised that children have now for the first time been in the car that was used as the car bomb?

Whenever I participated in foot patrols while I was in Iraq, I had a sense when things were wrong by the fact that there were no children around. If there were children laughing and playing I had--right or wrong--a sense of ease that I wasn't about to be sniped or blown up.

That sense of ease can no longer be trusted.

Most car bombings are simple intimidation tactics, not to intimidate Coalition Forces personnel, but to intimidate Iraqi civilians. Car bombings occur on a regular basis in Iraq because terrorists can see the controversy in America (on their satellite TVs) about whether American forces should or should not stay in Iraq and whether they should be funded by Congress. Another car bombing adds a little more emphasis that the terrorists want us to leave so that they can rule with unrestricted blood and horror.

It's hard to be surprised at the immoral tactics of the Iraqi terrorist insurgency, because the only thing that makes sense is that their tactics are immoral. It is good, however, to be incensed at their cowardice, as I think far too few Americans are, their only focus being that George W. Bush lied to the American people to get American forces into Iraq in the first place.

It's time to be fair in our indignance. Since coming home, I have learned a great deal that frustrates me about the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. However, I have never changed my opinion that to kill innocent civilians, Iraqi terrorists are cowards. I would appreciate it if those who are focusing on the sins of George W. Bush would balance their viewpoint by admitting that there is no justification for Iraqi terrorists to indiscriminately kill innocent people.

For the first time (as far as I know), children were inside a vehicle that was used as a car bomb. The two children inside the car were killed along with 3 other innocent bystanders. The two adults in the front seat of the car were able to run from the vehicle before it exploded. They were unharmed. They are pansies.

It's been time for a long time to stop giving the terrorists a free pass, blaming it on the American military presence in Iraq. Hopefully this new reminder will convince many who have looked the other way for far too long.

Women in the Military in Iraq

2007-03-20T21:02:00.000-06:00

Women have their place in the military. But they can also cause problems. Here's one problem that would likely never have occurred had women not been there.

I was eating lunch with co-workers the other day, and one of them asked me if I would encourage my daughters to join the military. After what I saw in the US army females in Iraq, I would not encourage my daughter to join. If they wanted to, I responded, I would warn them about a plethora of problems that they would face, the greatest of which is the likelihood that most male military members would think my daughters were there to provide comfort to the male soldiers, if you know what I mean.

When I served in Iraq, it was pretty obvious that a fair number of the females (there were probably 25 in the brigade) were there for more than one purpose. I was embarrassed by a couple of them one time in the base PX as they asked each other loudly in front of me if they would look better in this bra and panty set or that one. I was naive enough to wonder why such outlandish underwear was even available in a war zone.

There are certain situations in which males and females should not serve together. Combat is one of them. I was reading in A Deficit of Deficiency by Zell Miller tonight, when I came across this paragraph on pages 143-144:

Also in Spring 2004 came the unbelievable stupidity of a few American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. Again this proved highly divisive. The sadistic sex games and torture pointed out what many of us have long believed, but most are hesitant to talk about because of political correctness. The truth is that there are certain kinds of military missions that male and female soldiers should not serve together.

I will admit that until now this conclusion not once had crossed my mind, but I think it remarkably true. If there had been no women prison guards at Abu Ghraib, would there have been torture? Probably, because there were not enough guards there and because at the time a lot of division and brigade policies were to round up huge swaths of men as insurgents and dump them off at Abu Ghraib. What makes the torture so demeaning and angering to Iraqis, though, was not that it was run of the mill torture.

It was sexual. This is perhaps the worst form of degradation for a Muslim man--to be sexually tormented in front of a woman.

Military men pride themselves (at least in public) as being as heterosexual as the day is long. It is not to me conceivable that the sexual torture to which these Iraqi prisoners were put would have happened if only male prison guards had been at Abu Ghraib.

Wow! It Might Be Working!

2007-03-14T11:14:00.000-06:00

Recent events in Iraq leave reason for optimism that we can ultimately be successful there. Civilian body counts are down. Car bombings are trending downward. And as is detailed here, civilians are providing more help to coalition troops as they develop relationships of trust.

I've stated here before that I don't think the Bush Administration has done a very good job in their plan for the post-invasion occupation of Iraq. I've also mentioned that I don't think adding 21,500 troops will improve much our ability to maintain security in the areas we have cleared in Iraq. I've mentioned my optimism that, if anything might work, it's the fact that General David Petraeus is now at the helm.

It may be a premature statement, but the Petraeus way of doing things appears to me to be paying dividends. In two recent incidents, increasing cooperation of Iraqi citizens has led to significant reductions in the ability of the insurgency to terrorize the Iraqi people.

Cybercast News Service reported today that

[] soldiers [] uncovered two underground rooms being used to store some 50 completed IEDs and materiel including grenades, end caps, blasting caps, welding equipment, 20 lbs. of bulk explosives, 200 bags of fertilizer and more than 1000 lbs. of urea, used with fertilizer in the production of car bombs. The rooms also contained shackles, apparently for restraining prisoners.

In another incident, an informant's tip led Iraqi police officers U.S. forces to a large cache of IEDs, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft rounds and other weaponry in the Baqubah area.

The idea of working with the civilian population to provide security (read: "Serving the People of Iraq") is the only way it's going to work. It appears that it just might be working. And a lot of the credit can likely go to General Petraeus. Said a US representative:

...the fact that the information leading to the raids was provided by local residents is an encouraging sign of the success of our efforts, based on increased presence of coalition forces in local neighborhoods, to build relationships and ties of confidence with Iraqi citizens.

Regarding the violence in Baghdad, an AFP report states

Iraq's spokesman for Fardh al-Qanoon, Brigadier General Qassim Atta al-Mussawi, at a separate press conference listed the successes of the security plan, involving 90,000 Iraqi and US forces.

"A total of 265 civilians and 57 militarymen, including nine officers, have been killed since the plan kicked off on February 14," Mussawi said. This compared with the preceding month when 1,440 people were killed.

He also said that 94 "terrorists" were killed by Iraqi and US forces since the launch of the plan, compared to 19 in the preceding month.

Security forces had arrested "713 terrorists and 1,052 terrorist suspects compared to 169 terrorists before the plan was put into action," Mussawi said.

Al Qaeda is Busy in the United Kingdom

2007-03-14T10:37:00.000-06:00

What's al Qaeda been up to lately? Quite a bit in the United Kingdom. The United States should take some pointers with how the Brits are beefing up security around critical infrastructure.

Scotland yard has discovered a plot to destroy Britain's largest internet hub in London. Several suspects have been arrested.

In a series of raids, detectives have recovered computer files revealing that terrorist suspects had targeted a high-security internet “hub” in London.

The facility, in Docklands, houses the channel through which almost every bit of information on the internet passes in or out of Britain.

The suspects, who were arrested, had targeted the headquarters of Telehouse Europe, which houses Europe’s biggest “web hotel”, containing dozens of “servers” , the boxes which contain the information that makes up the web.

Recently, public safety officials in Britain discovered a plot against natural gas delivery in the UK.

Last year MI5 uncovered intelligence which suggested that Islamic terrorist suspects had carried out reconnaissance of the huge Bacton complex of gas terminals on the Norfolk coast. The threat led to the deployment of armed guards around the plant.

Britain has taken substantive action to protect their infrastructure in ways that does not infringe on people's liberties.

The discovery led Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of MI5, to set up the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure last month. It is a special MI5 unit to help to protect “infrastructure” sites from terrorist attacks, such as telecommunications, the internet and key utilities such as oil, gas installations and nuclear power stations.

I wonder if the United States is paying attention. All of the terrorists are not in Iraq. Some of them, unfortunately, could be here.

Deja Bush

2007-03-10T19:05:00.000-07:00

They knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish in the initial invasion. Yet as part of all the planning, they had virtually no idea what they wanted to do once they had the upper hand over Saddam Hussein. George W. Bush, you're thinking? Nope. His dad.

What are the odds that an American administration would make fools of its military by not having a plan of what to do once it conquered Iraq? Better yet, what are the odds that it would happen twice? Now for the impossibility--what are the odds that it would happened twice in the same family of leaders? Yet it did happen to both George H. W. Bush and to George W. Bush. Does that suggest something to us about whether we should vote for establishment republicans (or establishment anyone) for president?

I read the following paragraph from Barry Lando's remarkable work, Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, and for just a moment I thought I had skipped a few pages and about 12 years into the future.

It became obvious that, though the US had meticulously planned the military campaign against Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration had no plans for the aftermath. Thomas Pickering, who was then US Ambassador to the United Nations, revealed later, "We had wonderfully prepared combat activities, and we had absolutely no idea what to do in the post-combat phase. There was no policy, no examination of what we should do; no examination of how we should deal with the future..." (page 166)

When I served in Iraq, I was often irritated by what I saw in the news media about supporting the troops but not supporting the war. My opinion has changed somewhat now that I am home and have begun to investigate what has happened. The ones who are really against the troops are the ones who did virtually nothing to plan for their ultimate success.

It is perhaps forgivable that one President Bush would not have thought far enough into the future to decide what to do after he attacked Iraq. In that case, provocative statements the elder President Bush made led to massacres of thousands of Iraqi people. But how could the exact same thing happen to his son? "No plan" once again has led to the death of more thousands.

Have father and son not spent any time together in the last 15 years? I'm sure they have.

Serving Iraq on "The Right Balance"

2007-03-08T21:14:00.000-07:00

Greg Allen has one of the most thoughtful and provocative radio programs in the United States today. It was my good fortune to be on his show this morning. In the segment (included below), we talked about my service in Iraq and my feelings about how things are going. Greg's show is called The Right Balance. Click the image at right to go to his website.

About 3 or 4 months ago, I began listening to the Accent Radio Network. One of the shows I still listen to in the mornings while getting ready for and driving off to work is The Right Balance with Greg Allen. I was immediately impressed by the show because it was not bombastic and it interviewed a wide variety of well-spoken and very interesting people. Almost every day I hear on The Right Balance of a web site that I want to check out or a book that I want to read.

A few days ago I e-mailed Greg and told him how much I like his show, and told him a little bit about my service in Iraq. An e-mail conversation ensued, followed by a telephone conversation in which he asked if I would like to be on his show. My only radio experience is having called in to two talk shows in my life, but I decided it would be a fun thing to do.

It was. If you'd like to hear the interview, click on the player below. Check out Greg's show as well. I think you'll be impressed. Then drop him a line and tell him you think he has one of the best radio talk programs in the country. Because he does.

Walter Reed and the Abilene Paradox

2007-03-06T13:12:00.000-07:00

The "Abilene Paradox" revolves around the fact that everyone in a group or organization is in such a state of agreement that they cannot manage needed change. As I watched the re-creation of the true story of the Abilene Paradox today, I thought that it probably applies in part to the Walter Reed hospital fiasco.

In our staff meeting today at work, we watching a very interesting re-enactment of a true story, narrated by the guy it happened to. He, his wife, and her parents were sitting in the sweltering heat playing dominoes, and obviously every one of them were bored and irritated at the current situation. The father-in-law suggested that they get in the car and drive to Abilene, Texas, 53 miles distant, to have dinner at a restaurant. The looks on the faces of all (even the father-in-law) suggested that, as bad as things were, none of them wanted to do it, but none felt comfortable speaking out. Such inability to speak out when it appears that all are in agreement has come to be known as the "Abilene Paradox."

Four or five hours later they returned from what every one of them had endured as a not-fun time. But it wasn't until they got back that they realized that no one had wanted to go, but that all felt pressured to toe the line of propriety.

So it goes in large organizations as well. I don't know much about the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, even though it's been in the news quite a bit lately. But I'll bet there were a lot of people who knew that things were wrong, and they didn't have the courage to speak out.

People are afraid to speak out because of the fears they conjure up about what might happen if they do divulge their feelings. Ironically, however, the ultimate result, is that much worse things do happen when people don't speak out.

In large organizations, when the poop ultimately hits the fan, everyone really knows it is going to hit and scatter everywhere, but they hope that they can either push the inevitable off as long as possible or avoid getting splattered on.

Part of the Abilene paradox is that when the splattering finally occurs, there is always a search for a scapegoat (ergo General Janice Karpinski as the fall gal for abu Ghraib). In reality, however, the problem is systemic, and the problem cannot be solved by blaming just one person. Most everyone knows what's going on, but doesn't speak out.

Those who have been scapegoated at Walter Reed thus far are responsible. But so are probably a lot of other people. I suspect that scapegoating won't fix the problem this time either. Honesty and speaking out will, however.

The Best Kind of Surge Would be Moral

2007-03-06T07:32:00.000-07:00

Why will a surge of military forces in Iraq not be successful? Thomas Friedman says because we don't have the moral high ground. Until we have a "moral surge", we can't hope for success.

When a suicide bomber blows him- (and now even sometimes her-) self in a crowded marketplace, university campus, or funeral procession, why doesn't George W. Bush speak out about it. It's very likely because President Bush has very little capital--at least with the rest of the world--according to Thomas Friedman.

Maybe because there is in the eyes of others around the world some sense of moral justice when these things occur. There is definitely moral outrage at the Bush administration.

Friedman discusses some of the recent grisly mass murders by suicide, and then wonders:

Stop and think for a moment how sick this is. Then stop for another moment and listen to the silence. The Bush team is mute. It says nothing, because it has no moral authority. No one would listen. Mr. Bush is losing a P.R. war to people who blow up emergency wards. Europeans are mute, lost in their delusion that this is all George Bush’s and Tony Blair’s fault.

But worst of all, Muslims, the very people whose future is being killed, are also mute. No surge can work in Iraq unless we have a “moral surge,” a counternihilism strategy that delegitimizes suicide bombers. The most important restraints are cultural, societal and religious. It takes a village — but the Arab-Muslim village today is largely silent. The best are indifferent or intimidated; the worst quietly applaud the Sunnis who kill Shiites.

Nobody in the Arab world “has the guts to say that what is happening in Iraq is wrong — that killing schoolkids is wrong,” said Mamoun Fandy, director of the Middle East program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “People somehow think that killing Iraqis is good because it will stick it to the Americans, so Arabs are undermining the American project in Iraq by killing themselves.”

What would it take for President Bush to gain the moral upper hand? Let's assume just for argument that it's not too late. How about apologizing to the Iraqi people on Iraqi television for the atrocities that American soldiers have committed? How about coming clean about the sins of several previous US administrations and how we have helped over the last several decades to cause the morass that is Iraq? How about apologizing to the Iraqi people for never really having looked at them as equals? How about condemning these murder bombings and making it for once clear to the Iraqi people on Iraqi television that America's purpose is no longer wasting our and their time, but to leave Iraq when they want us to? How about asking them if they still want us there, and respecting their wishes? How about encouraging the American media to show and discuss the grisly truths?

President Bush yesterday appointed a commission to look into the Walter Reed hospital fiasco he said, because it is our moral imperative to provide good care for our injured soldiers. He is correct, but he can go much further.

George Bush, besides not having a plan for the first nearly 4 years of our less than noble endeavor, is conspicuously absent when it comes to morals. For the rest of he world, and for an increasing number of Americans, that is becoming painfully obvious. It's as though most of the time he's been hiding in vice president Cheney's undisclosed 9/11 bunker.

I agree with Thomas Friedman. At this point, even if we did have the 250,000 additional troops necessary to create the appropriate troop-to-populace ratio, we would still very likely fail.

Unfortunately, even wars are 'moral'. In other words, he who has the moral upper hand usually wins. And the Bush Administration currently does not have the upper hand.

The American Hegemon is Here to Help You!

2007-03-04T19:44:00.000-07:00

Given any one of a number of duplicitous actions by the United States government over the last few decades, it does not surprise me at all that the Iraqis would have a tendency not to trust the United States. Were our historical actions taken into account by the Bush II Administration when we went into Iraq in 2003? I'm not sure which of "Yes" or "No" is the worse answer.

Disclaimer: In areas with which I am not overly familiar, I am greatly influenced by the perspectives of those whose books I am reading. This post fits that category. I need to do more research, but at this point I am afraid that I will not like what I find in the footnotes of two copiously footnoted books:

Web of Deceit by Barry M. Lando
Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky

In the guise of spreading liberty across the globe, it appears what the United States has done in the last 50 years is sown discord and hatred while protecting what it terms its international (read elite and corporate) interests. If this is true, America has much to be embarrassed about and much to apologize for. I'm not sure if the juggernaut is too fully formed that a clean electoral sweep of the House, the Congress, and the White House would solve the problem, but that's beginning to look more and more like the only viable solution.

The problems of US duplicity in Iraq pervade every US administration since at least John F. Kennedy, if you believe Barry Lando and Noam Chomsky. Their research is detailed. They draw attention to the schemes of power players in every administration, whether Republican or Democrat. I, therefore, have a tendency to believe that the information they are providing is true.

I recently posted about US involvement in the Middle East (and particularly Iraq) as told by Barry Lando in his recent book "Web of Deceit". I'm nearly half finished with the book, and will have more to say on it here later. For now, I will say I am thoroughly disgusted with my government's attempts to mind the business of nearly every country but its own. Its short-sighted siding with Iraq-then Iran-then Iraq (and sometimes both at the same time) during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's is but one example of how I am embarrassed for my country in that we as a populace cannot see beyond the sound bites to elect leaders who truly care about liberty rather than foisting the worst facets of American capitalism and imperialism on the world.

It is no surprise to me, then, as Noam Chomsky says in his book Hegemony or Survival that most countries see the United States as the most dangerous country in the world. It is not possible to understand this concept until we understand the history of American involvement in the Middle East.

At least one microcosm of today's Iraq is told on page 5 of today's Parade Magazine:

"Before the United States came here, no one cared who was Sunni or Shia," Muhammad [not his real name] says... "Everyone was Iraqi."

"There would be no insurgency if you [the United States] were not here."

Muhammad was in his second year at the Iraqi Military Academy when L. Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army. It is suspected that between recently, when Muhammad joined the Iraqi army, and then Muhammad was an insurgent. He might still be.

Like Lando, Noam Chomsky gives some insight into why Iraqis like Muhammad feel like they do, and why they probably do for good reason. The first time I heard of Chomsky, through the filter of the establishment media, my impression was that he was a kook. After having read one of his books, however, I no longer think so.

Chomsky, whose book was written in 2003, has this to say:

..a US attack could "globalize anti-American and anti-Western sentiment...attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it."

An understanding of their mistrust of America makes that an un-surprising prognostication.

With the Iraqi people at the edge of survival after a decade of destructive sanctions, international aid and medical agencies warned that a war might lead to a serious humanitarian catastrophe. Switzerland hosted a meeting of thirty countries to prepare what might lie ahead. The US alone refused to attend.

Perhaps Chomsky's most interesting observation in this context was not even stated about Iraq:

It has been regularly observed that the extension of formal democracy in Latin America has been accompanied by increasing disillusionment about democracy.

I am sad to say that, considering the ineptitude (purposefulness?) of the Bush Administration, Iraqis have every reason to feel the same way about democracy.

Petraeus 'Gets It'

2007-02-22T19:59:00.000-07:00

There is a good chance that things will improve in Iraq, now that General David Petraeus is in charge of the US military. What took us so long to get to this point? Based on Gen Petraeus' previous successes, he should have been the top man at least 3 years ago.

Newsweek speaks of a do-over. And the likelihood that under the new Petraeus plan for Iraq, we're going to be there a long time. It's frustrating to me that we've spun our wheels with crap plans from non-thinking people for about 4 years now. But ineptitudes aside, I consider The Do-Over to be our only option.

Like only a few others, David Petraeus has been successful in combating the insurgency where he has tried it before. Thomas Ricks' stellar overview of our last few years in Iraq, entitled Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, points out that the adventure has had its bright spots. And Petraeus' tactics have been some of the best and most successful.

Gen. Petraeus took seriously the counter-insurgency tactics learned in Vietnam as he served over the 101st Airborne in Mosul in 2003. His maxim: Violence is a last resort.

Counter-insurgency (CI) realizes that the indigenous population is a crucial element to success. CI understands as best it can the culture and seeks to maintain human dignity at all costs. As opposed to anti-insurgency, which breaks in doors, points weapons at innocent people in a show of defiance, and rounds up all men in the area and carts them off to prison, CI understands that if you seek to understand, you will be understood.

CI realizes that constantly bringing the attack to the ever-elusive enemy is an exercise in frustration, which will only marginalize that portion of the populace that is your only hope for success. Anti-insurgency reaps ever smaller intelligence returns on its in-your-face investment. CI works among the people, learns the language, cultures, and frustrations, and seeks to help them overcome the problems that beset them--and inevitably gets far better intelligence information as to who the insurgents are. Where CI has been tried, two things have generally happened: (1) The place has gotten much more peaceful, and (2) the successful US military unit has been replaced by a unit that neither gives nor understands two cents about successful counterinsurgency tactics--and the place gets violent again.

Ricks provides an anecdote that captures the essence of Petraeus' engendering of success. When one of his brigade commanders heard of a rumor that Iraqi men thought American night-vision goggles could be used to see through Iraqi women's clothing, the commander had a town meeting where anyone who wanted to could look through the NVGs to see what they were really for. This generous act led to a a monthly convention of what came to be known as the Tigris River Valley Commission, which accomplished a great deal.

It's about time that they put Petraeus in charge. Imagine where we might be now if someone like him had been in charge from the beginning--someone who shows respect for the Iraqi people.

Things are Going Much Better...Boom!!!

2007-02-20T14:13:00.000-07:00

Each time the announcement is made that the coalition is getting the upper hand on the insurgency, another large scale attack occurs. Is it because the insurgency wants to prove the announcement wrong, or is it because the insurgency wants to give everyone a false sense of security and then further demoralize them? I suggest we stop announcing that we have things under control when we really don't.

The Christian Science Monitor reported the following from Nouri al Maliki yesterday regarding the Baghdad security crackdown:

Two days of relative calm in the capital prompted Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to declare a "dazzling success" in the security clampdown, as officials reported an 80 percent drop in violence.

That was before yesterday when sixty people were killed in dual car bomb attacks in a market area. And before a US military installation was attacked and 3 soldiers were killed and several others wounded.

That was before today when when a suicide bomber insinuated himself into a funeral procession and killed at least 18 people.

This seems to be the modus operandi of the insurgency. Periods of relative calm followed by a shattering of that calm. I'm not sure where the correlation lies. Is it because of the deliberate psychological effect of shattering a false sense of security? Is it because they want to prove wrong them (Coalition Provisional Authority, US Military, Nouri al Maliki) who announce that things are going much better? I think it's the latter.

Maybe the trend of violence and death really is down. Maybe it's a good thing to talk in terms of reduced numbers of deaths. But that is a precarious supposition anyway, especially when many insurgents seemed to have left Baghdad until the 'storm' clears. Last February, we were sure we had turned a corner because the number of US deaths was the lowest in several months. And then boom!!! The Samarra Mosque was bombed.

I guess my underlying point is this. From square one, we have underestimated the insurgency. And we continue to underestimate the insurgency. We needed 3 times as many forces in Iraq than we had following the invasion. And we need that many now. Iraqi military forces have made significant improvements, but not to the tune of the 250,000 more US troops we need. Insurgents can still come and go essentially at will.

It would be wonderful if it worked, but I don't imagine that the surge will work. The insurgents will continue to strike with abandon until we have enough forces to ensure that they cannot come back to the strongholds that we flushed them out of. There are places near Baghdad that we have not even patrolled yet. There are "black" areas that we do not even patrol because of their danger.

I'm sure the surge is making things marginally better in Iraq, but it's ironic to say that we're having "dazzling success". It encourages people to put their guard down so that they're ripe for the next knockout.

Until we start doing it right, it's going to be a long and usually discouraging haul, punctuated by periods of apparent gain, which are then followed by large scale attacks to remind us that we're really not doing it right. Until we stop fooling ourselves, we won't take the steps necessary to bring true peace to Iraq.

"Desert Fox" and the Absence of WMD

2007-02-17T11:31:00.000-07:00

The timing of the attack was extremely suspicious, but in retrospect, Clinton's decision to attack Iraq's military infrastructure in 1998 is probably a major reason that we did not find much in the way of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in 2003.

'Everyone' knows who Monica Lewinsky is. But not nearly as many know what Operation Desert Fox was. They happened at the same time, and the latter was thought by many to be nothing more than a cover by President Clinton of the scandal created by his involvement with the former.

Beginning on December 16, 1998, a three-day missile and bombing campaign, known as Operation Desert Fox, struck 97 separate sites in Iraq, most of which were believed to contain weapons of mass destructions, their precursors, and/or the facilities to create them. Some sites struck during the bombing were command and control sites.

At the time, President Clinton was being impeached. I thought, and many Republican politicians expressed their opinions that, the strikes were a way for Clinton to divert attention from himself. They really probably were, but the end result is interesting just the same. The strikes were probably more of a 'card up Clinton's sleeve'.

David Kay had been a senior weapons inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, and in 2003 entered Iraq as a representative of the United States with a fair amount of confidence that WMD would be found. Some of them may have been whisked off to other places, but not enough to make a huge difference. At any rate, WMDs were not found, and Kay counted himself among those surprised by this turn of events.

In reality, the timing was probably more fortuitous for Clinton than suspect. On December 15, 1998 a UN report stated that Iraq had failed to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. The next day, the US attacked. Coincidentally, a month prior to the strikes, Clinton hinted that Saddam Hussein needed to be replaced.

The results of the missile and air strikes was beyond anyone's imagination. It nearly had the single-handed effect of ruining the Hussein regime. In his book The Threatening Storm, Kenneth Pollack wrote:

Saddam panicked during the strikes. Fearing the his control was threatened, he ordered large-scale arrests and executions, which backfired and destabilized his regime for months afterward.

Intelligence sources in and around Iraq confirmed that there was "palpable fear that he was going to lose control." Ironically, a sentiment that was apparently completely lost on the Bush administration, leaders of other governments in the Middle East worried greatly at the prospects of Saddam's overthrow. You topple this guy, you'd better have a good plan in place, they said. Otherwise the whole region could descend into chaos.

Based on David Kay's research in 2003 in Iraq, his conclusion was that Desert Fox completely threw Saddam's WMD capability on its head. A high-level Iraqi energy official surrendered early on and explained that after 1998, Iraq had almost no ability to produce WMD's despite all of Saddam's bluster to the contrary.

"I'd Like You to Take My Seat"

2007-02-13T12:21:00.000-07:00

Never suppress a generous thought. That's what my friend taught me. I thank all those generous Americans who have been so generous to the men and women of the United States military. It helps us to remember what we're fighting for--goodness.

A friend recently told me a story about an acquaintance of hers that was flying home from a trip someplace. Because of a unique circumstance, she was upgraded to first class, and she was very excited about it. But as she was waiting to board, she noticed a lone female soldier waiting to board as well. A strong impression occurred to the lady: "Give her your seat."

She was, however, a bit shy in offering, and was excited to experience first-class flying for the first time. But again the impression came.

The lady then asked a nearby steward to help her find the young soldier on the plane. Soon the lady and the young soldier had exchanged seats. A few minutes into the flight, the soldier came back to where the lady was now sitting in her former seat. She said simply, "Thank you, ma'am. You'll never know how much this meant to me." She handed the lady a note and walked back to her seat.

The lady opened the note, which contained a small metal cross, one which were inscribed the words "God loves you." The note said: "You couldn't possibly have known how much your giving up your seat to me has elevated my spirits. You see, I'm returning home from Iraq for a fews days to attend my mother's funeral, and then I have to return. My mother was killed in a car accident. I began to think that I hated God, because he had abandoned me in my greatest time of need. But your actions have been as those of a guardian angel, and now I love God because you have helped me to remember that He still does love me."

As my friend closed her story, she finished her speech by reminding us, "Never suppress a generous thought."

It made a strong impression on me when I was returning to Iraq from my 15 day leave a year ago that the airlines gave me an upgrade to first class. I do not know if someone gave up their seat for me that day, but if you did, I salute you.

Serving in the Iraqi 'tornado' is without doubt the most difficult thing that most of us have done in our lives. Sometimes we make bad choices, and the Iraqi people have suffered for it. But with your generosity, hopefully we are more apt to realize that because the folks back home care about us, we will strive to serve with more dignity to help the people of Iraq enjoy the blessings that Americans take for granted.

The Best That America Has to Offer

2007-02-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

America was once thought of as "A shining city on a hill" whose values were recognized by all as timeless and appropriate for all mankind. We attempted to broadcast those values to the world and influence them with our words. Now a cacophony of alternative "values" are being transmitted into the Middle East. Values that Americans should be ashamed of, values that make Iraqis distrustful of America, and values that run completely counter to our expressed intentions of achieving liberty for the people of Iraq.

Not long before coalition forces invaded and occupied Iraq, America shut down its Voice of America broadcast in the Arabic language. Shortly thereafter, the Farsi-language broadcast ended as well. In its heyday, Voice of America broadcast American values, democratic values, and deeply meaningful discussions about social and political issues.

In the transition, what remains of VOA broadcasts, according to a former VOA director, is a putrescence of alternative American values. Ones that I'm embarrassed by. Ones that do nothing to endear Arab and Persian Muslims to the American way of life.

In the Spring of 2003, Robert Reilly, a former director of Voice of America, was in Baghdad. A young Iraqi journalist ran up to him and asked:

Why did you stop broadcasting substance and substitute music?

Instead of lessons on civics and social issues, what do people in the Middle East hear on Voice of America?

Britney Spears. Justin Timberlake. Eminem. Snoop Doggety Dog or whatever his name is this week. Iraqis are looking for freedom, not licentiousness.

That kind of filth masquerading as music irritates me to no end, but I live in a society that has been conditioned to accept it. Can you imagine how much distrust such broadcasts engender among the Iraqi people (not to mention others) who have never even heard such drivel, and who once believed that America represented things positive, like charity, public service, strong families, and devotion to God?

Reilly states:

We do not teach civics to American teenagers by asking them to listen to pop music, so why should we expect Arabs and Persians to learn about America or democracy this way? The condescension implicit in this nearly all-music format is not lost on the audience that we should wish to influence the most — those who think.

Some, of course, suspect that the United States is consciously attempting to subvert the morals of Arab youth.

I think there are entertainment forces in America who are subverting the morals of American youth, so the Arabs and Persians are probably not too wrong in their suspicions. The Iraqi people are much smarter and more civilized than we give them credit for. They know what America is supposed to stand for, but they can easily see that great swaths of American culture are decaying.

If we can't even keep our own society from failing on so many fronts, the Iraqis must think, how can we expect to help them? If this is the kind of help we're giving, I suspect they won't want it much longer.

If that's the best America has to offer, then we deserve to fail in Iraq.

Adam Galvez Street

2007-02-07T14:33:00.000-07:00

In the midst of all of the politics surrounding the Iraq war, we often forget the American men and women who are proud to serve their country. Even when they give the "last full measure of [their] devotion", we often don't notice for very long. As a result of an Eagle Scout project in Salt Lake City last week, Corporal Adam Galvez will be remembered. His family will ever be proud that their son served.

"Junior Cruz did about the coolest Eagle Scout project I've ever heard of," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said during a ceremony at Franklin Elementary School. "Junior, I think you'd make an awesome governor some day."

On Friday, February 2, 2007, a portion of 300 South Street in Salt Lake City was renamed "Adam Galvez Street".

Marine Corporal Galvez was one month away from returning home when he was killed by a roadside bomb on August 20, 2006. He had the full love and support from his family in a service he was proud to provide.

To show their support for the United States military, and especially those Marine friends he left behind, his parents have started a care package project called Cool Marines.

Corporal Galvez--thank you for your service and your ultimate sacrifice. You will be remembered.

Tikrit and ar Rutbah: How To and How Not To Serve Iraq

2007-02-03T19:42:00.000-07:00

A lot of members of the military are fighting machines. Not so many of them are understanding of and friendly with the indigenous people among whom they serve. Developing a rapport is, however, a critical facet of a successful counter-insurgency. Here are some examples of how it was done correctly and how it was done miserably in two places--Tikrit and ar Rutbah.

The other day I walked out of my office and found the parking lot encased in a construction fence. No one had given any warning that construction was about to begin, but it was clear that we would not be allowed to park in our parking lot for several months to come. There was a lot of talk the next day at work about how someone had come unannounced onto our turf and barred us from using it in the way that we were used to.

Imagine, if we felt so violated by a simple construction fence, how the Iraqi people felt when the coalition forces not only broke the Hussein regime, but then stayed and occupied their country. Some military leaders understood and sympathized with the indigenous people and encouraged them to invest in their own future, while other military leaders ignored the high dividends that such mutual understanding would engender. One of the most important facets of counter-insurgency tactics is to build a rapport with the people and let them know that you are there to help them achieve peace and living enjoyment. In essentially every case where this has been implemented in Iraq, it has worked marvelously. But then there are those who come in and screw it all up.

Here are two stories of how, at first, large amounts of mutual trust and understanding were built up, and then how after a battle handover, new units in the area ruined pretty much all the goodwill that had been created.

Tikrit

The first Marine Division had occupied Tikrit in 2003. They established a good rapport with the people of the city, particularly its leaders, considering the negative feelings the people were bound to feel for an occupying force. Then the 4th Infantry Division arrived. As the Marines gave the soldiers a tour of the city and were introduced to its leaders, who were working very peacefully with the Marines, they began to get the feeling that the 4th ID people didn't share the same priorities as they did.

The 4th ID initially assumed that the Tikritis were their enemies, and the 4th ID's oppositional tactics formed accordingly. The Marines threw a farewell party for the Tikritis, but the 4th ID representatives who were invited refused to attend. The adversarial perception became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It took a couple of months before the gains the Marines had achieved were completely wiped out in Tikrit. A city that had developed understanding and trust for the Americans now hated them.

Ar Rutbah

Ar Rutbah is a fairly small city of about 25,000 in far western Anbar province. Despite having initially taken some hostile fire from the city, Major Jim Gavrilis approached its leaders in a non-hostile fashion. He tried to understand the feelings of the people, and because of this he was able to build strong relationships. He dined with them and got to know their concerns. He encouraged members of the local police force to take part in local checkpoints. He put sheikhs in charge of monitoring looting and other crimes. He handed relief supplies to the local leaders to be distributed as they saw fit. "The laws and values of their society and culture were just fine," he said. They just needed to be enforced.

The unit that replaced Gavrilis' unit had other ideas as to how to function in Ar Rutbah. No longer were the Iraqis treated as equals. No longer were American troops integrated into the social structure of the city. Quickly the situation deteriorated, and Americans came again to be seen as the occupying enemy.

It is common sense that when an army occupies another country, it will not for long be perceived as liberators. Unless--unless those who occupy make an attempt to understand the people and their history and culture. In those cases where an empathic attempt has been made, it has reaped huge dividends. Where such an approach has either not been tried or has been overturned, it has reaped the whirlwind.

Iraq Gotsta Decide Who to Dance With

2007-02-02T20:47:00.000-07:00

Did you ever get asked to the high school dance by more than one person? Was it pretty hard to decide who to go with? Iraq is entwined in the same dilemma. It has two suitors, and it can't make up its mind which one it likes best. Or maybe it can.

When you got asked to the Sadie Hawkins dance in high school by two different girls, what did you do? Were you the guy who made the decision to go with one of them and then lived with it, or were you the one that tried to go on two dates the same night? Did it make it worse that the two people who asked you out hated each other's guts?

Iraq has a big problem. The United States and Iran have both asked Iraq to the big dance. I think I know which one she wants to go with, but she won't make up her mind. As it stands, Iraq cannot hope to please both America and Iran, whom to call titanic adversaries is an understatement.

A recent article from the Chicago Tribune captures the dramatic irony:

"We want to maintain good relations with our neighbors, especially Iran," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told a news conference Thursday in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. "We have long borders with them, we have local interests with (them) and we would like to have this relationship not in the shadow of the others."

"We want good relations with everyone, whether Iran or the U.S.," he said. "The problems between the U.S. and Iran must not get solved in Iraq."

It ain't gonna work.

For several months, the US has claimed that Iran is involved in inflaming the passions of violence and war in Iraq. Recently this fact has become obvious. The problem comes for the US when the Iraqi government calls for the release of Iranian personnel who are clearly involved in stirring up contention and death in their neighbor country.

We all know the maxim "dance with the one that brung ya". Well, it's high time that Iraq decide who they got brung by. Was it them? Or us?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki recently stated:

"There's a contradiction because America sees Iran as an enemy, whereas the Iraqi government sees Iran as a friend," he said. "The most important country with influence in Iraq right now is Iran, and these issues should be well and thoroughly discussed between America and Iraq."

And a Kurdish member of parliament said:

"Any escalation between Iran and the U.S. will be negative for us," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator. "If you exclude the Sunnis, the majority of Iraqis think of Iran as a friend."

Maybe they already have decided.

Ignoring the Lessons of "Provide Comfort"

2007-02-01T20:34:00.000-07:00

In 1991, President George Bush, Sr. encouraged the Shia in the south and the Kurds in the north to rise up against Saddam Hussein. But when the uprising occurred, the US military was required by the civilians in Washington to sit on the sidelines. Kurds flew from the wrath of Saddam into the mountains. Only after their dire straits became evident did the Bush administration send assistance, in the form of Operation Provide Comfort. We learned a lot about the Iraqi people and culture during that time, but very little of that knowledge was implemented in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As operation Desert Storm came to a close, President George H. W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against their dictator, Saddam Hussein. US aircraft even dropped leaflets into Iraqi units in the field encouraging them to overthrow Saddam.

Then suddenly, the Bush Administration declared the war over. American military units sat sometimes within visual and hearing distance of the resulting slaughter perpetrated by Iraqi helicopter gunships on the rebellious Iraqi populace.

As Saddam wreaked revenge on the northern Kurds, they began to flee by the thousands into the northern mountains. Their situation was dire, with obviously poor sanitation and very little food. Finally, in late July of that year, President Bush relented and offered hope and help to the beleaguered Kurds.

General Jay Garner, later put in charge for a very short time of Iraqi reconstruction, commanded the operation. General Anthony Zinni was Chief of Staff for Provide Comfort. John Abizaid, then a Lieutenant Colonel, led the charge southward into Iraq, occasionally fighting and usually intimidating Iraqi military units into submission

We learned a great deal from Operation Provide Comfort. Ironically, not much of the lessons derived were used in what little preparation there was for Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Three of the main players, who developed a great deal of practical knowledge about Iraq, its people, and its culture, were either persona non grata in the Bush administration or were required to take their orders:

Jay Garner was given little time to prepare to lead the Iraq reconstruction effort, and was barely in Kuwait when the gig went down. When Bush's pie in the sky dreams went south, Garner's head was the first to roll.
Anthony Zinni, who had been in the thick of Iraq during Provide Comfort, was dismayed at the cavalier attitude with which many in the Bush administration approached the Iraq invasion. Despite his warnings that America's leaders had grossly underestimated the task ahead of us, Bush jumped pell-mell into the fray.
John Abizaid, recent commander of CentCom in Iraq, appeared to grumble under his breath often at the instructions of the Bush administration. After recently expressing his doubts about the Iraq "surge", he announced his retirement from the military.

The Bush Administration thought the whole Iraqi thing would be a quick feather in their cap. And they paid no heed to the intelligence and military types who said it would be much more difficult than their wildest imaginations. Karl von Clausewitz said "[do] not [] take the first step without considering the last." Sun Tzu taught that "To win victory is easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult."

Woops.

Western Support for Saddam

2007-01-29T19:54:00.000-07:00

Thanks to BarryLando.com and Barry's work in conjunction with Canal + France, we know more about America's involvement in the support of Saddam Hussein against the Iranians in the 1980's. We also learn more about about how United Nations sanctions against Iraq did not hurt Saddam, but hurt his people greatly.

We all know that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction to kill many of his people. But what is not commonly known is that Donald Rumsfeld met with and shook hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983, and although it is not known what went on in this meeting, only a couple of months later, Saddam used chemical weapons on his people. In an effort to support Iraq against Iran, the US provided satellite imagery to the Iraqis about Iranian troop formations. The Iraqis used nerve gas against the Iranians after receiving this intelligence.

George W Bush cited the village of Halabja, whose residents were killed in 1988 by chemical weapons, as a reason to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But at the time it happened, no western governments wanted to talk about it. Partly because of its support of Iraq over Iran, and partly because what Lando and Canal + France say was western desire to control Iraqi petroleum, the US and other western governments ignored Halabja when it happened. Opposition in the US to legislation to place sanctions on Saddam were orchestrated by Colin Powell, at that time National Security Adviser. French and German companies had sold chemicals and other equipment to Iraq in the 1980s. Records of these sales are kept under lock and key in the United Nations.

Sanctions imposed by the United Nations on Iraq for 12 years is estimated to have caused the deaths of at least 500,000 Iraqis. Despite knowledge of death rates under the sanctions, the UN continued the sanctions. Medications, including rehydration fluids, ran out quickly. Some politicians in Washington accused those warning of the mass deaths of succumbing to Saddam's propaganda. The allegation is made in the following video that the west deliberately targeted water and electrical supplies in Iraq. Untreated water resulted in mass outbreak of disease. The theory was that if the people of Iraq were hurt by the sanctions, they would rise up against Saddam. But in reality, the Iraqi people blamed the west. The embargo is now over, but Iraqi doctors still don't have the supplies they need. The United Nations kept the embargo in place even though it was learned that Saddam was circumventing the embargo and that only the Iraqi people were suffering.

For more information, visit barrylando.com. Barry is the recent author of the book WEB OF DECEIT: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush.

BYU Professors, Utah Mormons, and the War in Iraq

2007-01-27T14:42:00.000-07:00

How many Utah Mormons blindly support President Bush's prosecution of the Iraq war, and how many of them simply support the troops who are in harm's way? Four years ago, six BYU professors didn't support the plan, and the problems they predicted are occurring.

In January 2003, I was busy wondering if I would be called to active duty for the War on Terror. I don't particularly remember the letter to the Deseret News posted by six BYU professors on the 23rd of that month, but I remember thinking that there didn't seem to be enough evidence for us to attack Iraq, regardless of how bad Saddam was.

Utah Mormons
It is very common in my family and in LDS church meetings to pray for the troops. Usually we hear prayers asking for blessings of safety and success. In my family we have come to add the term "integrity". It is important that United States troops act with integrity in any mission they serve under.

Because we pray for the troops, does that make Utah (and other) Mormons automatic supporters of President Bush? I don't know for sure, but I do know that a lot of people voted for him, and a lot of people still support him in his efforts to win the war in Iraq. The average American (including the average American Mormon), does not fill a great deal of his day, unfortunately, with politics. My personal opinion, therefore, is that Utah Mormons show their support for the troops by expressing support for the President.

Let me also say that I think a lot more Utah Mormons (and everyone else) should involve themselves a lot more in politics. It is said that Latter-Day Saints, of all people, should be inquisitive in every area of their lives, having the Gift of the Holy Ghost to guide them to make wise decisions. This means that we shouldn't simply accept at face value what our leaders tell us, but rather should find out for ourselves whether it is true. In nearly every case, I have come to an independent conclusion that what my leaders tell me is true, but I don't think a lot of Mormons exercise the same diligence. And because they accept what their church leaders tell them, they have a tendency to accept what national leaders tell them, so long as the national leaders espouse social morality. I think this is why most Utah Mormons accept Bush, but didn't accept Clinton.

BYU Professors
The BYU Professors (who may not all be LDS) who warned against human rights and moral dangers were very prescient. But they weren't prophetic in the sense that (1) a lot of other people were saying the same things, and (2) the Bush administration had no business ignoring what so many people were saying. They were, however, a very important part of the national conversation that somehow got ignored by a lot of Americans and a lot of Utahns. It's easy to say it now, but I think they were right. Here are some of their points, according to the Deseret News:

The guest editorial welcomed the prospect of Saddam Hussein's removal but correctly warned that:
• The United States had time for more debate before launching the war;
• American forces in Iraq could become targets of terrorism for years to come;
• A new but weak Iraqi government would invite civil war and widespread human suffering;
• Many nations would judge a preventive attack by the United States as unjustified.

It's good that Saddam is gone, but the way he went made him a martyr instead of a pariah. Had there been a longer time for national debate, the determination likely would have been: don't go. American troops are targets, and that was a given, but now it is looking like we would have to stay there for a long time to bring the society under control (I remember listening to the radio in late 2002(?) when it was discussed that we would likely stay in Iraq for 10-12 years). Many nations have not only judged our attack as unjustified, but have been surprised at the immoral acts of the once shining city on a hill.

Hmmm...

Way To Go Nancy!

2007-01-26T22:30:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi surprised a lot of people by showing up in Baghdad today. And in my case it was a pleasant surprise, because she said some things that I agree with.

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi arrived in Baghdad today and met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Because of her opposition to the American presence in Iraq, I am pleasantly surprised at her unscheduled appearance there, as well as the things she said. Some think the visit by her and Rep. Jack Murtha couldn't have come at a worse time, but I am happy to see encouragement for the Iraqi government from both sides of the American political aisle.

According to a Yahoo news article:

in meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US officials she advocated the Iraqis reaching political solutions rather than relying on a surge in US troops to end sectarian violence.

I agree (and have done for some time) that it is time that Iraq stop relying on the United States to provide its security and to obtain its well-deserved peace. Following her meeting with Iraqi officials, she and other members of the US House of Representatives issued a statement that read in part:

The sooner Iraqi leaders make necessary political accommodations, including amending their constitution to resolve outstanding differences among all Iraqi communities, the better the chances for ending the sectarian violence.

Perhaps giving the lie to the right-wing pundits who claim that all the Democrats want to do is "cut and run", Pelosi gave me a different impression. She said:

The delegation's view is that American forces should quickly begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counter-terrorism, force protection, and controlling Iraq's borders.

It doesn't sound like the Democrats want the American military to simply roll up the carpet and leave, but rather step back into the training and consulting shadows and let Iraqis interact with Iraqis in a delicate security situation. I support this strategy, although I admit I don't know how to define "quickly" in this instance. At any rate, such a strategy will show the Iraqis that we still care about their future, while at the same time allowing them to invest more fully in it themselves.

The Greatest Mistake in Afghanistan?

2007-01-21T11:15:00.000-07:00

Our greatest mistake in Iraq was likely that we disbanded the military and the Baath party, taking away the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and their families with nothing to replace these livelihoods with. In a similar way, we are achieving the same negative result in Afghanistan by destroying poppy fields. There is a better way to accomplish our purposes and at the same time reduce dramatically the number of Afghanis who are joining the Taliban.

I recently wrote about "The Greatest Mistake" in Iraq, which I believe to be the disbanding of the Iraqi military and the Baath party, minute portions of which functioned to ensure Saddam's power. Others were members of these organizations because they were forced to, and yet others were because it was a means of providing for their families. The disbanding of the military and the major (only?) political party had ramifications that people who studied the issues beforehand saw coming. With no other paycheck, many members of the underground Saddam resistance joined the insurgency. Those who didn't study ignored them. And they ignored the impassioned pleas of the Iraqi people.

A similar problem is becoming more evident in Afghanistan. Although poppy fields are a significant source of the illegal opium trade around the world, poppy production must also be realistically seen as the only source of income for a great number of Afghanis.

Columnist Anne Applebaum cites the history of what has happened when bans against opium production have been tried--failure. Despite all the destruction of the poppy crop in the last year, poppy production in Afghanistan is actually up by 60%, according to the Washington Post.

Applebaum predicts that planned chemical airdrops to destroy poppy fields will cause more resentment and more new adherents for a currently burgeoning Taliban.

Is there a way to allow the Afghani people to maintain their livelihoods and put their product to productive use? There seems to be. Turkey has made use of a program that has decimated the illegal drug trade and kept it low. Since the early 1970's here's how it's been working:

Turkey -- this was the era of "Midnight Express"-- was identified as the main source of the heroin sold in the West. Just like in Afghanistan, a ban was tried, and it failed.

As a result, in 1974 the Turks, with American and U.N. support, tried a different tactic. They began licensing poppy cultivation for the purpose of producing morphine, codeine and other legal opiates. Legal factories were built to replace the illegal ones. Farmers registered to grow poppies, and they paid taxes.

Many of the problems in this world are economically based. People in many areas of the globe are just eking out an existence for themselves and their families. If they had an alternative, they wouldn't plant roadside bombs. If they had an alternative, they wouldn't produce opium for the illegal market. It would be nice to give the Iraqi and the Afghani people another alternative.

But the Bush administration doesn't seem have this approach on its radar screen. I think maybe it's time they do. Unless they want the Afghanis to hate us as bad as the Iraqis do.

Interesting Developments in Iraq

2007-01-18T16:25:00.000-07:00

Several interesting things have happened in the last couple of days in Iraq. The military has regained some of its honor, Baathists are being invited back into the Iraqi government, and al Maliki seems to be cracking down on Muqtada's army. What's next--"dogs and cats living together?"

Nouri Cracks Down

Pressure from Sunni members of the Iraqi government and from the Bush administration appear to have Nouri al Maliki doing what he wouldn't do before--cracking down on Muqtada al Sadr. This is a far cry from a few months ago when al Maliki required US troops to pack up their Sadr City checkpoints and go home. We'll see how long it lasts...

Meanwhile, Muqtada's henchmen are a bit perplexed by the whole deal:

Mahdi Army fighters said Thursday they were under siege in their Sadr City stronghold as U.S. and Iraqi troops killed or seized key commanders in pinpoint nighttime raids. Two commanders of the Shiite militia said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stopped protecting the group under pressure from Washington and threats from Sunni Muslim Arab governments.

Ahmad Enlarges the Tent

Ahmad Chalabi chairs a commission to remove former Baath party members from public office, but wait! He's decided to invite over 2,000 of them back in. Actually it's a little bit late to try to make up for one of the worst (and first) decisions of Henry Kissinger's little buddy, L. Paul Bremer III. But hopefully it will have a positive effect.

Chalabi, who heads a commission charged with removing former ranking Baath Party members from public office, told reporters at a Baghdad news conference that the Iraqi government had changed course and was now trying to bring more Baathists back into government.

The draconian de-Baathification laws established by American administrator L. Paul Bremer III after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion rankled Iraq's Sunni Arab minority, which served in Hussein's political party in greater proportion than other Iraqi groups. Reforming those laws has been a key demand of the Bush administration as well as the Sunnis, whose alienation from the political process has fueled violence.

Chalabi said more than 2,300 former high-ranking Baath Party members had been or were being reinstated to their government jobs or were being given pensions.

However, Chalabi gave assurances that the ongoing reinstatements would not allow those who committed crimes against Iraqis under the former regime to go scot-free. "These exclusions are not to be considered an amnesty,"...

US Military Removes a Bit of Tarnish from its Honor

In perhaps the second most despicable (see below) act the US Military has committed on Iraqi soil, one Marine has plead guilty to murder for framing an Iraqi villager as an insurgent and then killing him for it. Others have already plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for their testimony.

Prosecutors say the squad kidnapped 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamdania, took him to a roadside hole and shot him to death. They placed an AK-47 and shovel by his body to try to make it look like Awad was an insurgent caught in the act of planting a bomb, prosecutors said.

Following the most despicable act committed in Iraq by the US Military, a US soldier has plead guilty to rape of an Iraqi girl and the murder of her and her family. The only unfortunate result of his pleading is that he will no longer face the death penalty, which apparently he richly deserves.

Prosecutors said the five soldiers spotted Abeer Kassem Hamza al-Janabi on the street and plotted to break into her home to rape her.

Once there, they killed her parents, Kassem Hamza Rachid al-Janabi and Fakhriya Taha Mohsine al-Janabi and six year old sister, Hadeel Kassem Hamza al-Janabi.

Then they raped the girl, shot her and set fire to her body.

It's the Economy, Stupid!
more to come...

Incompetence

2007-01-16T07:29:00.000-07:00

Even those who once cheered the war to replace Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq are having second thoughts. Call it a scapegoat, or call it what you want, but many of the former cheerleaders place the blame at the foot of the Bush Administration and its incompetence.

Updated 1-17-2007.

How do you lose a war?

1. Take away the President's decision-making power by never letting him hear the disagreements.
2. Refuse to admit mistakes.
3. Ignore the real war while you war amongst yourselves.
4. Fire the guy who gets out and does stuff and then take as gospel truth everything the guy says who is hunkered down inside a Green Zone of his own making.
5. Start before the plan is complete or the players are in place.

I guess I don't blame Colin Powell for stepping down as Secretary of State. He probably saw it all coming. Actually, it was probably nearly there.

Some of the neo-conservatives became disillusioned with the Bush Administration's ability to prosecute the war in Iraq about the same time Colin Powell did. Others are just recently expressing their frustration. Cliff (and others) on OneUtah, probably fairly accurately, asks (my interpretation) if the Bush Administration could really be that stupid. I don't think so, but they sure act like it.

I thought it the epitome of irony that Bush chose the number 21,500 as the number of troops we would need to complete the Iraq "surge" so that we could "clear and hold" Baghdad. It's
as though he were saying, 'We can easy do it with 20,000 more, but let's throw in another fifteen hundred just for good measure." This after Jay Garner and nearly all Bush's generals (except for Tommy Franks, whose military leadership experience was limited to the art of blitzkrieg) told him that we would need about 400,000 troops to accomplish the task at hand.

It all is coming to a head for me right now as I contemplate that my contribution to Iraq is likely going to be that I made a few friends and impressed several with my ability to speak some Arabic. No, I really don't think Bush is that stupid. Nor Cheney. Nor Rumsfeld. So what gives?

These are some of the thoughts I had as I read a recent article in Vanity Fair magazine.

Update 1/17/2007 - Like me, a lot of the Neo-Conservatives (I'm not one) felt that America would be helping Iraq achieve liberty. But it hasn't worked out that way, at least yet.

Richard Perle has this to say about what went wrong:

The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I think he was led to believe that things were chugging along far more purposefully and coherently than in fact they were.

If he were asked today, should we go into Iraq, his answer would be:

'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.'

Kenneth Adelman is more pointed about the incompetence of the Bush Administration:

I am extremely disappointed by the outcome in Iraq, because I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.

James Woolsey was very in favor of an Iraq invasion, but now is angered and perplexed that we are making the same errors that we made in Vietnam. One of the greatest problems is that we don't stay in an area that we have cleaned of insurgents. As soon as we leave, the insurgents return. This is not a problem that the military leaders have caused. It is a problem that could only have been solved by using the approximately 400,000 troops that many advised the Bush Administration to use in the first place. The paltry addition of 21,500 troops in an area the size of Baghdad will likely make little difference.