Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    November 2024
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘al qaeda’

Iraq news too good to report

Posted by Richard on June 3, 2008

American casualties in Iraq fell to a five-year low in May. Prime Minister al Maliki has united large portions of the population across all ethnic groups. The Iraqi army successfully pulled off al Maliki's bold plan to reclaim Basra from the Mahdi Army. And both al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are on the run everywhere.

But there aren't many news stories about Iraq these days, and you'd be hard-pressed to find much information about these developments in the mainstream media. When the subject of the surge's success does come up, those invested in our defeat will say just about anything to explain it away. Case in point: Nancy Pelosi, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, insisted that the positive developments in Iraq aren't due to the surge, but to Iran's "goodwill."

Bless their hearts, the editors of The Washington Post acknowledged the good news in a surprising (to me, at least) editorial Sunday (emphasis added):

THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks — which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. [It's not odd to those of us who suspect there's an agenda behind the relentless coverage of bad news and ignoring of good.] While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Read the whole thing

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Burying the good news

Posted by Richard on November 8, 2007

Apparently, the front page of The New York Times is reserved for covering global warming, the (perennially) impending recession, and bad news from Iraq. Good news from Iraq has to figuratively sit in the back of the bus. From Newsbusters (emphasis in original):

When Rush Limbaugh opened today's show by mentioning that the New York Times had relegated to page A19 the story of the ridding of Al Qaeda-in-Iraq from all of Baghdad, I actually thought he might be joking. Surely not even the Times could be so brazenly biased as to bury such a huge story reflecting the success of the surge. But, sure enough, Rush was right. A19 is exactly the location to which the Times exiled the story. And to further reduce the number of people who would learn the good news, the paper stuck this bland headline on the story: "Rebel Unit Now Out of Baghdad, U.S. General Asserts". The headline of the online version of the story, "Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says," differs slightly, but the text is the same.

Yeah. It was just some "rebel unit" or "militant group" that the MNF has driven out of all of Baghdad: AL-FREAKING-QAEDA!

"Rebel Unit," indeed — it's just amazing what lengths the NYT editors will go to in order to avoid the obvious headline, "Al Qaeda Driven Out of Baghdad."

The Washington Post, not to be outdone in terms of burying the good news, relegated this story to page A20:

BAGHDAD, Nov. 7 — The drop in violence caused by the U.S. troop increase in Iraq has prompted refugees to begin returning to their homes, American and Iraqi officials said Wednesday.

Tahsin al-Sheikhly, an Iraqi government spokesman, said 46,030 displaced Iraqis had returned last month from outside the country to their homes in the capital. He declined to comment on how the government determined those statistics.

"People are starting to return to their homes," said Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. troops in Baghdad. "There's no question about it." 

The quote from Maj. Gen. Fil is from the same luncheon with reporters that the NYTimes story cited. WaPo not only buried the whole story one page deeper, they didn't mention the general's remarks about driving out al Qaeda until the 7th paragraph.

Here's something else I noticed: The NYTimes story described al Qaeda in Iraq as "the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led," and the WaPo story described it as "a largely homegrown Sunni insurgent group that U.S. officials say they believe is led by foreigners."

These aren't wire service stories, and they don't appear to share any authors — the NYT story is by Damien Cave, with contributions from Baghdad by Khalid al-Ansary, Anwar J. Ali, and Mudhafer al-Husaini; the WaPo story is by Amit R. Paley, with contributions from "Zaid Sabah and Dalya Hassan in Baghdad, Saad Sarhan in Najaf and other Washington Post staff in Iraq." I suppose the NYTimes' Iraqi contributors could also be the "other" WaPo contributors. But I suspect the nearly identical descriptions are simply media group-think.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How FISA protected al Qaeda kidnappers

Posted by Richard on October 17, 2007

Apparently, it's a very small world when it comes to telecommunications. Two people having a cell phone conversation in Iraq are likely to have that call routed through American telecom infrastructure, where it could be intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies. But under the old FISA law (which the Democrats are trying to restore and further tighten this week), they'd need a warrant. It could be granted retroactively, but first someone has to stick their neck out and grant emergency permission based on the belief that the warrant will later be approved. Think bureaucrats and political appointees are eager to do that?

The problem isn't entirely theoretical, according to a New York Post story. On May 12, while the strict FISA rules were still in effect, al Qaeda gunmen in Iraq attacked a U.S. outpost, killing four soldiers and taking three others — Spc. Alex Jimenez, Pfc. Byron Fouty, and Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr. — hostage. The subsequent frantic search led to information possibly identifying the kidnappers. U.S. intelligence agents asked for permission to intercept communications that might lead to the kidnappers and their captives:

Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.

"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.

"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."

Democrats supporting the tightening of FISA denounced the release of the story as a cynical attempt to politicize the search for the soldiers. Fox News has a fair and balanced presentation of both sides, along with a detailed timeline. The Democrats' House Intelligence Committee staff argued that it shouldn't have taken NSA lawyers five hours to determine that they had probable cause, and it wouldn't have been necessary to track down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in Texas if three other Justice Dept. officials authorized to approve the request had been available.

Granted, five hours seems like a long time for lawyers to hem and haw over probable cause. But consider the climate. These people knew there was an ongoing surveillance firestorm, complete with leaks to the New York Times, congressional hearings, lawsuits, endless political posturing, and threats of legal action. If you were an NSA attorney, how quickly would you stick your neck out and say, "I recommend going ahead, and I guarantee the FISA court will retroactively approve"? If you were Gonzales or one of the assistant AGs, wouldn't you carefully review the material presented to you before authorizing the intercept, knowing it could land you in front of a hostile committee with the news cameras rolling?  

The Democrats' argument amounts to saying that the restrictions wouldn't have been a problem if the officials involved had just acted without regard for the possible consequences — the consequences that those same Democrats have done their best to hang over the officials' heads.

It's nice that Democrats are so concerned about our privacy now, considering how hard they worked to undermine it for umpteen years (remember Carnivore, "key escrow" encryption, "Know Your Customer," and John Effin' Kerry's repeated attempts to further destroy financial privacy?). But do we have to protect the privacy of what amounts to battlefield communications by our enemies during a war? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Terror and the Arab “street”

Posted by Richard on September 19, 2007

A prominent Saudi cleric who in the past praised Osama bin Laden and whose teachings are said to have inspired terrorist attacks has now condemned al Qaeda for all the killing of "innocent Muslims and others." Iowahawk posed an interesting question about al Qaeda's recent tactics and proposed an interesting answer:

The question, of course, is why has al Qaeda turned to killing "innocent Muslims"? As Glenn and everybody else notices, Arab clerics did not bother to denounce terrorism when Americans were the prominent targets, but regard terrorism much differently when it produces Arab and Muslim victims. Al Qaeda turned to a policy that seemed calculated to alienate the Arab "street." Why?

The best answer, or at least the answer that will best withstand the scrutiny of history, is that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, wittingly or not, put al Qaeda in an almost impossible position.

Naturally, you need to read the whole thing

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Celebrating an assassination

Posted by Richard on September 14, 2007

Mike at The Monkey Tennis Centre bravely ventured into the fever swamps of the moonbat left to see how they reacted to the assassination of the pro-American Sunni sheik who met with President Bush in Ramadi:

They’re hanging out the bunting at the Daily Kos and HuffPo following the assassination of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, one of leaders of the Anbar Awakening alliance of tribal leaders against Al Qaeda – and the fact that the sheikh was photographed shaking hands with President Bush when the President visited Iraq last week is only adding to their glee.

With the exception of this piece, the posters hadn’t piled on when I checked. But the comments boards, while including pertinent questions about why the sheikh wasn’t better protected, and observtions on the dangers of forging alliances with self-interested and arguably unsavoury characters, are filled with sentiments such as “you lie down with dogs, you get fleas” and “it's a 'small price to pay' for a photo op with our great president!” Another commenter refers to the Anbar Awakening as the “Anbar sellout”, apparently affronted that Abu Risha should have turned his back on Al Qaeda because they were murdering his people.

Mike went on to argue that nutroot celebrations were premature. Other Anbar sheiks have already pledged to continue Abu Risha's fight against al Qaeda. In fact, he maintained, the jihadis have hurt themselves with this assassination, reminding the Sunni population whose support they need why al Qaeda must be driven out.

The Monkey Tennis Centre looks like an interesting new blog. Check out Mike's masterful skewering of CNN. Whenever I get around to some long-overdue site maintenance, I'll add it to the blog roll.  

(HT: LGF

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Osama bin rotting?

Posted by Richard on September 14, 2007

I've had doubts about bin Laden being alive for some time now, and the two recent videos just reinforced them. This CNET News Blog post pointed out some fascinating analyses of the videos by Dr. Neal Krawetz at Secure Computing. In As Alive as Elvis, Dr. Krawetz reported his findings regarding the Sept. 7 video, which included:

The video shows Bin Laden in his white hat, white shirt, and yellow sweater. This is the same clothing he wore in the 2004-10-29 video. In 2004 he had it unzipped, but in 2007 he zipped up the bottom half. Besides the clothing, it appears to be the same background, same lighting, and same desk. Even the camera angle is almost identical.

… If you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years — only his beard is darker and the contrast on the picture has been adjusted.

What are the chances of nothing changing (except his beard) in three years? Virtually zero. The clips appear to have been recorded three years ago.

The audio does make reference to relatively current events (people and places). However, these references are ONLY made during the frozen-frame portions and only after splices in the audio track. The animated portions make no references to current events.

The big question is: is the audio from Bin Laden? I'm not an audio expert (yet) and since I don't know Arabic, I cannot tell if there is an accent or if the accent changes. I do know that the room echo and background sounds change during different audio clips. And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together.

In a follow-up, Bin Laden Video Image Analysis, Krawetz reported (ellipsis in original):

With regards to Bin Laden's beard… It cannot be detected with any of my tools as being digitally modified. However:

  • The whole inner frame of Bin Laden was resaved at least twice. The number of reseaves does not appear to be enough to distort significant modifications.

  • The colorful border was also saved twice. However…

  • Even though the Bin Laden frame and border were both saved twice each, they were not saved at the same time. I know this because the Jpeg artifacts (8×8 squares) are on the 8×8 grid for the Bin Laden frame, but are shifted over on the border — the border's 8×8 artifacts do not lie on the Jpeg 8×8 grid.

  • The whole video frame (border + Bin Laden) was combined from many parts. Here's the order, starting with the last thing added:
    1. As-Sahab logo, English subtitles, and text below Bin Laden (alternates between English and Arabic) was added last.
    2. "The Solution" and Arabic in the top right corner was the penultimate addition.
    3. The Bin Laden frame and border were combined.
    4. In the Bin Laden frame, there is no indication of manipulation and no indication of a chromakey replacement. In the border, the spinning globe was modified along with the strobing colors.


  • Both saturation and PCA shows fine horizontal stripes on Bin Laden and the background. These came from interlaced video sources. In contrast, the text elements and As-Sahab logo appear to be from non-interlaced sources.

FWIW, interlaced suggests (but only suggests) older video and non-interlaced suggests newer. 

If I had to bet, I'd bet bin Laden is dead, and Zawahiri, the brains behind al Qaeda, is keeping the charismatic figurehead "alive" for his PR value. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Anbar Awakening

Posted by Richard on September 13, 2007

Gen. Petraeus, in his report to Congress, repeatedly mentioned Anbar province and the dramatic improvements in the security situation there. If you're skeptical, or just want to know more about it, there are some excellent first-person reports available.

The best place to start is Michael Totten's Anbar Awakens Part 1: The Battle of Ramadi. Totten doesn't whitewash the current situation at all, but he makes it clear what a vast improvement it is from the truly grim situation last year. How and why things changed makes a fascinating read:

In October of last year the tribal leaders in the province, including some who previously were against the Americans, formed a movement to reject the savagery Al Qaeda had brought to their region. Some of them were supremely unhappy with the American presence since fighting exploded in the province's second largest city of Fallujah, but Al Qaeda proved to be even more sinister from their point of view. … The leaders of Anbar Province saw little choice but to openly declare them enemies and do whatever it took to expunge them. They called their new movement Sahawa al Anbar, or the Anbar Awakening.

"AQI announced the Islamic State of Iraq in a parade downtown on October 15, 2006," said Captain McGee. "This was their response to Sahawa al Anbar. They were threatened by the tribal movement so they accelerated their attacks against tribal leaders. They ramped up the murder and intimidation. It was basically a hostile fascist takeover of the city."

"Sheikh Jassim came to us after that," Colonel Holmes told me, "and said I need your help."

"One night," Lieutenant Markham said, "after several young people were beheaded by Al Qaeda, the mosques in the city went crazy. The imams screamed jihad from the loudspeakers. We went to the roof of the outpost and braced for a major assault. Our interpreter joined us. Hold on, he said. They aren't screaming jihad against us. They are screaming jihad against the insurgents."

"A massive anti-Al Qaeda convulsion ripped through the city," said Captain McGee. "The locals rose up and began killing the terrorists on their own. They reached the tipping point where they just could not take any more. They told us where the weapon caches were. They pointed out IEDs under the road."

"In mid-March," Lieutenant Hightower said, "a sniper operating out of a house was shooting Americans and Iraqis. Civilians broke into his house, beat the hell out of him, and turned him over to us."

"One day," Lieutenant Hightower said, "some Al Qaeda guys on a bike showed up and asked where they could plant an IED against Americans. They asked a random civilian because they just assumed the city was still friendly to them. They had no idea what was happening. The random civilian held him at gunpoint and called us to come get him."

Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart? Even better, Totten reports:

The tribes of Anbar are turning their Sahawa al Anbar movement into a formal political party that will run in elections. They also hope to spread it to the rest of Iraq under the name Sahawa al Iraq. It is already taking root in the provinces of Diyala and Salah a Din.

For confirmation of the current state of Ramadi from a mainstream journalist who's at best neutral, read Martin Fletcher's remarkable article from The Times of London. It also tells the story of the late Capt. Travis Patriquin, who helped bring about the Awakening and today has a Ramadi police station named after him:

The honour is well-deserved. Captain Patriquin played a little-known but crucial role in one of the few American success stories of the Iraq war.

He helped to convert Ramadi from one of Iraq’s deadliest cities into arguably the safest outside the semi-autonomous Kurdish north. This graveyard for hundreds of American soldiers, which a Marine Corps intelligence report wrote off as a lost cause just a year ago, is where the US military now takes visiting senators, and journalists such as myself, to show the progress it is making.

In Ramadi last weekend I did things unthinkable almost anywhere else in this violent country. I walked through the main souk without body armour, talking to ordinary Iraqis. Late one evening I strolled into the brightly lit Jamiah district of the city with Lieutenant-Colonel Roger Turner, the tobacco-chewing US marine in charge of central Ramadi, to buy kebabs from an outdoor restaurant – “It’s safer than London or New York,” Colonel Turner assured me.

Read the whole thing. Then, if you still want more, turn to the dispatches of Michael Yon. Ghosts of Anbar, Parts I-IV, are up close and personal views of what's going on elsewhere in the province, including Fallujah, with lots of terrific insights interspersed with appropriate quotes from the military's counterinsurgency manual. If you only have time for one, read Part IV, the most recent. Here's a taste: 

After we pulled back from the suspected bomb, SSG Lee wanted to go talk with the Police at the Falahat train/police station, so we left the small group of Marines. SSG Lee and I headed out alone with Iraqis.

SSG Lee stressed to the Police that we needed statements, so people from Falahat came in and gave written statements. Iraqis respond to a sense of justice. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated, and it is this sense of justice on an international scale that gets undermined when people are held in prisons without being charged with any crimes.

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.

From the counterinsurgency manual that every Marine and Soldier should read:

1-119. The presence of the rule of law is a major factor in assuring voluntary acceptance of a government’s authority and therefore its legitimacy. A government’s respect for preexisting and impersonal legal rules can provide the key to gaining it widespread, enduring societal support. Such government respect for rules—ideally ones recorded in a constitution and in laws adopted through a credible, democratic process—is the essence of the rule of law. As such, it is a powerful potential tool for counterinsurgents.

SSG Lee made sure the Iraqis treated them well during transport, and when we returned to the tiny base, Captain Koury told the Marines not to leave any of the prisoners alone with the Iraqis. The Iraqis can be rough on prisoners—the culture can be rough—but mentoring seems to be working where it occurs.

There's much, much more, and if you're like me, you'll be sucked in.

Another independent journalist reporting from Fallujah is Bill Ardolino, who recently described an afternoon chatting with the locals:

Through a local interpreter, we talked about their changing opinion of Americans, Iraq's prospects, the misery of living under al Qaeda, the joys of kabob and favorite soccer teams. Their open and friendly nature is hard to reconcile with the violent history of American-Iraqi interaction in Fallujah, and many of them charitably chalk it up to a "misunderstanding."

Towards the end of a long conversation with one group, I said, "Well, I wish you luck. And I want you to know, besides the marines and soldiers that you meet here in the city, there are many civilians back in America who hope for Fallujah's success."

The afternoon's joking died down as the interpreter translated and each of them earnestly told me "shukran" ("thank you"). And one young guy blurted out in halting English, "We like you!"

Backatcha, buddy. Now I'm off to hit that kabob.

Mmm. I like kabob. 

If you appreciate the detailed, on-the-ground reporting and analysis these independent journalists have been providing at great personal risk and expense — and which mainstream journalists like Martin Fletcher do only rarely — please join me in financially supporting the work of Michael Totten, Michael Yon, and Bill Ardolino. Consider, too, supporting the new Iraq embed just begun by Bill Roggio and David Tate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Barnett on 9/11

Posted by Richard on September 12, 2007

Dean Barnett:

I WASN’T PLANNING ON POSTING A 9/11 reminiscence today.  I wrote a lot of them back in the day, and I didn’t think I had anything fresh to say.  Whatever I wrote today about 9/11 was going to stay between me and my hard drive.  Then a few hours ago I got a letter from a Cantor Fitzgerald employee.  It brought back memories of the day.  Suddenly saying nothing about 9/11, especially on a day when so many Senators are talking about al Qaeda as part of a lame attempt to score partisan political points, seemed inappropriate.

Read. The. Whole. Thing. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It has to be Rove

Posted by Richard on September 9, 2007

Frank J. provided the definitive Osama tape analysis — short, to the point, and spot on:

We all know Rove is behind the newest Osama video, right? I mean there's no way Osama released a video on his own imitating every single left-wing talking point; that's just too perfect for us. He did everything but end his tirade with, "In conclusion, murderous terrorists and liberals are pretty much ideologically the same. Once again, if you take anything away from my speech, it should be that terrorists and liberals are almost exactly the same thing."

This is just too perfect for us; it has to be Rove.

BTW, I think it's funny how the liberals are acting like all we right wing bloggers conspired together to use the talking point that Osama sounds like a left-wing blogger. Did they ever consider that the reasons we all said he sounds exactly like a left-wing blogger is because he sounds exactly like a left-wing blogger? If in his video he had said, "Hey! Hey! Hey!" in a deep voice, we'd all be saying he sounded like Fat Albert. Instead, he said, "Democrats need to get America our of Iraq now and you need to read Chomsky and worry about global warming," so we're all saying he sounds like a liberal blogger. Occam's razor.

All I can add is I really like Occam's razor. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Padilla guilty

Posted by Richard on August 16, 2007

Jose Padilla will spend the rest of his life in jail:

Padilla and co-defendants Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.

Click here to read the indictment (FindLaw pdf).

Jurors reached a verdict Thursday and it was read at 2 p.m. before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke. The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about a day and a half following a three-month trial.

Over at Daily Kos, the commenters are weeping for poor Jose, expressing disbelief at the quick verdict, and denouncing his detention and prosecution as reprehensible. The consensus seems to be that he was tortured until he went insane. They're ignoring the evidence that his mental state predates his apprehension. And they're confusing a commitment to Islamofascism with insanity — an understandable error.

HT: LGF  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

al Qaeda’s Tet offensive

Posted by Richard on August 16, 2007

Commentators and pundits have been pondering the meaning of al Qaeda's horrific truck bomb attacks in far northern, peaceful, Iraqi Kurdistan. What prompted them to attack a small, isolated ethnic group, far from U.S. troops, the surge, and disputed territory? Most missed the point.

This attack wasn't aimed at the Yazidis, or at the Kurdistan region, or even at the government of Iraq. It was aimed squarely at NBC, ABC, CBS, and the United States Congress. The Yazidi villages were just a convenient, low-risk target on which to unleash the maximum possible carnage. The reason for killing hundreds of Yazidis is to shock and dismay Americans. Expect more such "media events" between now and September 15.

Today's column by Ralph Peters addresses the issue well (emphasis added):

The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.

That's one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn't care much about the Yazidis.

But the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.

Al Qaeda has been badly battered. It's lost top leaders and thousands of cadres. Even more painful for the Islamists, they've lost ground among the people of Iraq, including former allies. Iraqis got a good taste of al Qaeda. Now they're spitting it out.

The foreign terrorists slaughtering the innocent recognize that their only remaining hope of pulling off a come-from-way-behind win is to convince your senator and your congressman or -woman that it's politically expedient to hand a default victory to a defeated al Qaeda.

Peters goes on to explain that, barring the triumph of the "peace at any price" crowd here at home, and despite the likelihood of more massive bloodshed in the near term, the Petraeus plan is working well and the longer-term outlook in Iraq is pretty good. Read the whole thing.

The Islamofascists in general and al Qaeda in particular are masters of media manipulation and propaganda (the founders of the movement learned at the side of the Nazis). They're also keen students of history, and they know all about the 1968 Tet offensive, in which Viet Cong forces were defeated and decimated at every turn, but won a huge victory on the public relations front, leading Walter Cronkite to declare Vietnam a failure and destroying public support for the conflict.

Will al Qaeda be able to replicate Tet? I don't think so. For one thing, the media environment has changed, and we no longer rely on a Walter Cronkite to tell us "that's the way it is." Hardly anyone watches the Katie Courics and Keith Olbermans today. And in any case, if they try to paint an al Qaeda Tet as a tremendous defeat for the U.S., the new media will quickly counter with evidence to the contrary.

But they will no doubt try, and it will get ugly. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Foolish myths

Posted by Richard on August 14, 2007

The inimitable Christopher Hitchens looked at the myths about al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and wielded his mighty pen like a sword, slicing them effortlessly to pieces:

To say that the attempt to Talibanize Iraq would not be happening at all if coalition forces were not present is to make two unsafe assumptions and one possibly suicidal one. The first assumption is that the vultures would never have gathered to feast on the decaying cadaver of the Saddamist state, a state that was in a process of implosion well before 2003. All our experience of countries like Somalia and Sudan, and indeed of Afghanistan, argues that such an assumption is idiotic. It is in the absence of international attention that such nightmarish abnormalities flourish. The second assumption is that the harder we fight them, the more such cancers metastasize. This appears to be contradicted by all the experience of Iraq. Fallujah or Baqubah might already have become the centers of an ultra-Taliban ministate, as they at one time threatened to do, whereas now not only have thousands of AQM goons been killed but local opinion appears to have shifted decisively against them and their methods.

The third assumption, deriving from the first two, would be that if coalition forces withdrew, the AQM gangsters would lose their raison d'être and have nothing left to fight for. I think I shall just leave that assumption lying where it belongs: on the damp floor of whatever asylum it is where foolish and wishful opinions find their eventual home.

Needless to say, read the whole thing

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

“We Just Might Win”

Posted by Richard on July 30, 2007

Today's New York Times contains a remarkable op-ed column by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the liberal Brookings Institution. The pair — who, according to Blackfive, had previously argued "against the continuation of our presence in Iraq" — recently returned from an eight-day tour of the country, and the trip changed their assessment considerably:

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.

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.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services – electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation – to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began – though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks – all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups – who were now competing to secure his friendship.

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. …

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. …

It's not just the Petraeus plan and the additional combat troops that have made the difference, though. The situation has been slowly but surely improving (with ups and downs, of course) for quite some time. One reason is that the prospect of living in a medieval caliphate focuses the mind, causing more and more Iraqis to decide that a pluralistic society with American soldiers hanging around is far better than the alternative:

In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

This comes as no surprise to you if you've been reading Michael Yon, as I've strongly suggested. Or Austin Bay, or Bill Roggio, or Michael Totten, or various and sundry Milbloggers. And despite what O'Hanlon and Pollack claim, I don't think it's happened suddenly in the last few weeks or months. Maybe Iraq reached a tipping point in recent weeks, but the tide was gradually turning against the jihadists long before that.

The sudden change that's surprising, actually, is that there've been several positive reports like this one in the mainstream media in the last few weeks. After two years of unrelenting negativity, of endless talk of quagmire, civil war, and Vietnam comparisons, of contemptuous dismissal of anyone and anything that contradicted or questioned the prevailing wisdom, why are some journalists suddenly seeing signs of hope and evidence of improvement where yesterday they saw none? Maybe they were blind to everything that didn't fit their narrative until the contrary evidence reached some critical mass. Now, as conscientious journalists, they can no longer ignore it. Yeah, maybe that's it.

If you're inclined toward a more cynical interpretation, how about this one: The media effort to Vietnamize Iraq has served its two main purposes, crippling the Bush administration and giving Congress back to the Democrats. Now it's time to drop or downplay it so the Democrats don't go into the election defined by their KosKids/MoveOn/nutroots wing and lose the presidency in a McGovern-like rout. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton machine had something to do with it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hearts and minds

Posted by Richard on July 24, 2007

Investors Business Daily:

The cut-and-run Democrats have long argued that our presence in Iraq has merely stirred things up and given al-Qaida an effective recruiting tool. Well, we've certainly stirred things up — and thanks to the success of our surgin' general, David Petraeus, we have a bevy of new Iraqi recruits. Except they've got al-Qaida in their cross hairs.

On Saturday, members of the 1st Cavalry Division based near Taji brokered a formal agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders to join forces against al-Qaida and other jihadists. The Sunni and Shiite agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji, just 12 miles north of Baghdad.

The deal is just the latest example of the progress Democrats claim isn't happening in Iraq — a series of deals with various tribes and militia groups that at one point were part of the insurgency. But it's the first involving both Sunni and Shiite sheiks together.

Read the whole thing.  

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Senate vs. real world

Posted by Richard on July 19, 2007

Harry Reid's all-nighter was all make-believe. At Sen. Barbara Boxer's behest, Reid scheduled the votes five hours apart, so most senators went home or slept in their offices. The cots were just stage props that went unused. The gimmick resulted in fewer jellyfish Republicans embracing defeat than before, so that didn't work out too well for Reid.

Yesterday, Rush played a clip of Sen. Boxer on CNN saying the Democrats' goal was to get our troops "back on track, going after Al-Qaeda" and "out of the civil war."

Meanwhile, in the real world, Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was spilling his guts to his American captors about who we're really fighting in Iraq:

The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella terror group affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq, is led by a fictional character designed to mask that group's foreign influence, a captured terror leader has revealed to U.S. interrogators.

In an effort to give Al Qaeda an Iraqi face, terrorists created "a virtual organization in cyberspace," U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said.

In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, a name indicating Iraqi origin. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi.

Al-Mashhadani said that an actor with an Iraqi accent is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web, Bergner said.

To make their fictional leader appear credible, al-Masri swore allegiance to al-Baghdadi and pledged to obey him, which was essentially swearing allegiance to himself, Bergner said.

Al-Zawahiri also repeatedly referred to al-Baghdadi in video and Internet statements, further deceiving Iraqi followers and perpetuating the myth of al-Baghdadi.

So the people we're fighting in this "civil war" that the Democrats want to get us out of are the same people who declared war on us in 1996 and 1998 (and who began waging war against us at least as early as 1993). They're pretending to be an Iraqi insurgency. I'd like to hear Sen. Boxer explain why she's aiding and abetting their deception.

Boxer and the Democrats are also promoting the idea that we've lost and the situation is hopeless, although even al Zawahiri has admitted that quite the opposite is true. In the real, I mean, Riehl World, Dan Riehl did a nice job of illustrating the progress made in the past 18 months in Iraq:

As the light green fills in month by month, those are areas in which Iraqi forces are now taking the lead. As you begin to see dark green, those areas have been turned over to Iraqi forces. Watch the video below, or here – then tell me there is no progress in Iraq. And remember, Senators, America is watching you.

 Progress In Iraq

  

So, to sum up: It's not a civil war. It's not a distraction from the war with al Qaeda. And we're not losing. Any questions? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »