The Amboy Times

Iraq: It Ain't Gonna Happen

Good news for the surge.

Al Qaeda and the Sunni Arab terrorist organizations are in very bad shape. The momentum, gained by the start of the surge offensive earlier this year, has continued, and now the senior leadership of al Qaeda is getting killed or captured faster than the terrorist organization can find and appoint replacements. This is reflected in the greatly reduced number of attacks. U.S. casualties for December are the lowest American forces have ever suffered since the 2003 invasion. Iraqi police and army losses are down as well, but not as much. Iraqi security forces are doing more of the fighting. But there's another fight brewing between the new anti-terrorist Sunni Arab militias the Americans have established. The Shia dominated government sees these guys as Saddam's henchmen and previously terrorists themselves. That's accurate in many cases, but by getting these thugs to switch sides, the death rate in Iraq has plummeted. In fact, al Qaeda has called on its remaining followers to concentrate on the Sunni Arabs now working for the government. However, the Shia Arabs know that, long term, the Sunni Arab minority expects to regain power. To counter that, some Shia Arab militias are again attacking Sunni civilians and gunmen. The government is reluctant to deal with this, but U.S.  troops are not, and now there's a lot of American raids on Shia militias, including some being trained by Iranian agents.

 

It's going to take generations before the Kurds and Shia forget the atrocities inflicted on them by the Sunni Arabs. Don't expect a resolution on that score any time soon. It ain't gonna happen.

Iraq: Teen Girl Stoned to Death

What makes this story truely sad is this is not an isolated incident. Honor killings and stonings of women and girls are still accepted in many parts of the muslim world, where sharia law is implemented.

A 17-year-old girl has been stoned to death in  Iraq because she loved a teenage boy of the wrong religion.

As a horrifying video of the stoning went out on the Internet, the British arm of Amnesty International condemned the death of Du’a Khalil Aswad as "an abhorrent murder" and demanded that her killers be brought to justice.

Reports from Iraq said a local security force witnessed the incident, but did nothing to try to stop it. Now her boyfriend is in hiding in fear for his life.  

Miss Aswad, a member of a minority Kurdish religious group called Yezidi, was condemned to death as an "honour killing" by other men in her family and hardline religious leaders because of her relationship with the Sunni Muslim boy.

Flopping Aces has the video. Notice lots of men standing around taking pictures with their cell phones. Here's a video of a stoning in Afghanistan. Islamic texts perscribing stoning are numerous.

 

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Adam's Blog, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Right Perspective, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, Church and State, Stop the ACLU, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Strategypage: Information Warfare

Strategypage: Islamic terrorists are encouraging their supporters, who can write in English, to get on American web sites and pretend to be friends or family members of American soldiers or marines. The "media jehadis" are instructed to tell stories in line with the anti-war tone of American and European media. Things like soldiers committing suicide because they were forced to take part in atrocities in Iraq. Or wounded soldiers suffering, or killing themselves, because of the poor care and abuse they have received from the army. The media jihadis are told to make it sound like they are simply passing on what a soldier said, not to pretend to be a soldier or marine. Media jihadis are told not to discuss anything from the Moslems side, and Moslems should only be referred to as innocent victims. Never mention the Sunni-Shia conflict or Islamic terrorism. Posters should not stick around for discussions, lest they be found out. Care should be taken to select screen names similar to other English speaking posters. Keep messages simple, so as not to betray the fact that you are not a native English speaker.

 

This is a clever strategy, and whoever started posting it openly on Arab language web sites, demonstrated a keen understanding of how the media works in the West. Bad news is more believable, and stories like this are already spread by the mass media. On some American anti-war sites, American posters are already inventing such stories. Some will be believed. That's the way the world works.

 

This strategy is already being executed by American media is very subtle ways. For example, most American media stories about the suffering of Iraqi civilians leaves out the fact that most of these victims are Sunnis, or Shia who have been attacked by Sunni terrorists. Outside of Sunni and partly Sunni areas, where 70 percent of the population lives, economic conditions are much better, and there is little violence. But by concentrating on the Sunnis, you get an anti-war human interest story, without revealing that you are examining the self-inflicted tribulations of the people who have caused all the problems in the first place. Information War doesn't get any better than that.

Also read, McCain Warns Against Spread of Socialism and

Indonesian Schoolgirl Beheaders Get Wrist Slap

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, sissunchi, Faultline USA, stikNstein... has no mercy, basil's blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Myths of the Iraq War

Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War. In no particular order. There are more, but ten is a manageable number.

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.

 

2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN. By that standard, the invasion of Kosovo and bombing of Serbia in 1999 was also illegal. Saddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, and was trying to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. 

 

3-Sanctions were working. The sanctions worked for Saddam, not for Iraq. Saddam used the sanctions as an excuse to punish the Shia majority for their 1991 uprising, and help prevent a new one. The "Oil For Food" program was corrupted with the help of bribed UN officials, and mass media outlets that believed Iraqi propaganda. Saddam was waiting out the sanctions, and bribing France, Russia and China, with promises of oil contracts and debt repayments, to convince the UN to lift the sanctions.

 

4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran. Of course, and this was supposed to make Iran more approachable and open to negotiations. With the Iraqi "threat" gone, it was believed that Iran might lose its radical ways and behave. Iran got worse as a supporter of terrorism and developer of WMD. Irans clerical dictatorship did not want a democracy next door. The ancient struggle between the Iranians and Arabs was brought to the surface, and the UN became more active in dealing with problems caused by pro-terrorist government of Iran. As a result of this, the Iranian police state has faced more internal dissent. From inside Iran, Iraq does not look like an Iranian victory.

 

5-The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a democracy established, which was the objective of the operation. Peace did not ensue because Saddam's supporters, the Sunni Arab minority, were not willing to deal with majority rule, and war crimes trials. A terror campaign followed. Few expected the Sunni Arabs to be so stupid. There's a lesson to be learned there.

 

6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what? Al Qaeda was a growing movement before 2003, and before 2001. But after the Iraq invasion, and especially the Sunni Arab terrorism, al Qaeda fell in popularity throughout the Moslem world. Arab countries cracked down on al Qaeda operations more than ever before. Without the Iraq invasion, al Qaeda would still have safe havens all over the Arab world. 

 

7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War. Then so was Britain when the IRA was active, and so is Spain today because ETA is still active. Both IRA and ETA are terrorist organizations based on ethnic identity. India also has tribal separatist rebels who are quite active. That's not considered a civil war. This is all about partisans playing with labels for political ends, not accurately describing a terror campaign.

 

8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree. Check election results and opinion polls. Reporters tend to ask Iraqi Sunni Arabs this question, but they were the only ones who benefited from Saddams rule.

 

9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe. The Moslem unrest in Europe was there before 2001, and 2003. Interviews of Islamic radicals in Europe reveals that the hatred is not motivated by Iraq, but by daily encounters with hostile natives. Blaming Islamic terrorism on Iraq is another attempt to avoid dealing with a homegrown problem.

 

10- The War in Iraq is Lost. By what measure? Saddam and his Baath party are out of power. There is a democratically elected government. Part of the Sunni Arab minority continues to support terror attacks, in an attempt to restore the Sunni Arab dictatorship. In response, extremist Shia Arabs formed vigilante death squads to expel all Sunni Arabs. Given the history of democracy in the Middle East, Iraq is working through its problems. Otherwise, one is to believe that the Arabs are incapable of democracy and only a tyrant like Saddam can make Iraqi "work." If democracy were easy, the Arab states would all have it. There are problems, and solutions have to be found and implemented. That takes time, but Americans have, since the 18th century, grown weary of wars after three years. If the war goes on longer, the politicians have to scramble to survive the bad press and opinion polls. Opposition politicians take advantage of the situation, but this has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with local politics in the United States.

Iraq Index

I was listening to Mark Davis on Friday when a caller mentioned the Iraq Index. The Index is a treasure trove of raw statistics compiled by the Brookings institution. It's official title is;  Iraq Index, Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in Post-Saddam Iraq, Click the above link and download the pdf. Here are the bits I found most interesting.

The first section deals with Security Indicators. Nearly everyone is aware that we have lost over 3,000 troops in the Iraq War, but Brookings breaks it down in nearly every conceivable way. For example, 585 soldiers died in events considered to be non-hostile incidents. The report doesn't go into detail about non-hostile incidents, except 80 due to helicopter accidents.

Race baiter's will be disappointed to know that nearly 75% of the casualties are white/Caucasian. Hispanic/Latinos represent about 11% , Blacks slightly less than 10%, other races less than 2% each. The only reason I mention this is to dispel the myth put forward by Rev Sparton, Jessie Jackson et al, that Blacks  are over represented in military action. It's a bald-faced lie and they need to be called to the carpet for it every time they bring it up.

The British have lost 129 troops,  the rest of the coalition, 123. Remarkably low numbers considering the political beating Tony Blair and other coalition leaders have taken.

But here's an important point not made often enough. It's often said that the Iraqi's aren't doing anything to help themselves in this war, but consider these numbers;

Iraq's security forces are thought to be about 323,000. Coalition forces are about 150,000. Iraqi military and police have lost 5,971 lives since 6/'03. Nearly double that of all coalition forces. But even this number is small considering there were 23,000 murders that took place in Iraq over the same time period. Iraqi civilians have suffered the most in the acquiring of their freedom, losing between 19 to 42 thousand depending on the study.

452 Non-Iraqi civilian contractors have died trying to rebuild Iraq, and 92 journalists have died trying to tell the story of this conflict.

The Insurgents (aka terrorists), have kept the war ongoing despite the taking of Bagdad and the overthrow of Saddam's Baathist regime. It is estimated their numbers are between 20,000 and 30,000. This makes a "surge" seem more reasonable. It's notable that only about 32% of the troops in Iraq are considered combat troops.

Although the insurgency has increased it's number of attacks over the course of the war, the number of coalition and Iraqi casualties has actually decreased since the peak of the insurgency in May '04 to Jan '05. I'm not sure if this means the insurgents are less organized and therefore less effective, or the coalition has become better at thwarting attacks. Either way, I'm sure the press won't tell us.

An estimated 13,000 insurgents are currently being detained.

So other than disposing of Saddam, how has the war helped Iraq?

Iraq is now 4th on the index of political freedom, behind only Israel, Lebanon and Morocco, in that order. There are currently about 300 political parties in Iraq, compared to one (the Baath Party), before the war.

The unemployment rate has dropped from 50-60% to 25-40%.

Inflation has dropped from 36% in 2003, to 20% in 2005.

The national GDP has risen from  25.5 in '02 to 27.9 in '05.

Non-US entities have pledged $14.5 billion to reconstruct Iraq.

The number of trained judges has increased from 0 (yes, 0) to 740.

Car traffic has quintupled.

The number of registered cars before the war, 1.5 million. Oct '05, 3.1 million.

Pre-war phone subscribers, 833,000. August '06, 8.1 million.

Pre-war internet subscribers, 4,500. Aug '06, 197,310

There were no commercial TV, radio or independent newspapers under Saddam's regime. As of March '06, there are 54 TV stations, 114 radio stations and 268 independent newspapers.

Teacher salaries have increased from $2 a month to $50 a month. Enrollment of students has also increased.

This is an impressive list of improvements since the invasion, but no one seems to care. The Western media has continually bashed Bush and Blair, always pressing the negative and whispering words like "failure","quagmire", a "new Vietnam" into the ears of the worried public. As a result, public support has waned while the insurgency increases.  Unintentional it may be, this is no coincidence.

To make matters worse, Iraqi confidence is declining, pages 48-51 show poll after poll of Iraqis saying things are worse.

Although there is one very telling number. Despite all the political backlash, bloodshed and insurgent terrorism. 77% of Iraqis still think the invasion and overthow of Saddam was "worth it".   

The President's Speech

Here are some key point's in the President's speech,

On protecting the American people:

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

The Dems seem to oppose this idea entirely. By pulling the troops out immediately, how do they purpose to deal with radical Islam? Clinton's "hands off" approach to Somalia, the USS Cole and the first WTC attack have emboldened the muhajideen. How long do they plan on ignoring the enemy?

Where both parties are wrong is on Homeland security. Spending billions of dollars abroad while leaving the borders, ports and airlines open to terrorists is foolhardy.

On what victory in Iraq will look like:

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security…The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will…Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

By traditional standards the war is already won, Saddam has been tried, found guilty of war crimes, and executed. Our troops control most of the country and a new government has been elected.

"An end of sectarian violence" is the only aspect of the war that hasn't gone well. The  Democrats and the media have crucified the President on this point and thereby blown it all out of proportion. What may happen to a fledgling Iraqi government by a quick withdrawal is never really discussed. The long view of changing the way the Middle East thinks about democracy and freedom hasn't held the attention of the populous, thus making a difficult job nearly impossible.

It's the President's job to communicate these ideas to the public, but the press has served as a mouthpiece for our enemies. The left has made political hay out of every bit of negative news and tied the hands of the troops they claim to support. The most powerful military on Earth is losing a psyops war at home.

On bringing our troops home:

[To]step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government…Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

It seems here that Bush is hinting that the surge is a last big push before the pullout. Time will tell.

Other voices, Stop the ACLU,  Sister Toldjah , Hot Air has the video, Captain's Quarters, Political PitBull, Don Surber, Decision '08,

Bush Goes Big

Last month, with the resigntion of Donald Rumsfeld, a bipartisan Congressional study group offered three choices: Go Big, Go Long or Go Home. I don't think anyone thought that Bush would send the troops home, leaving the the other two options.

Go long was the Rumsfeld strategy, and we saw what happened to him, so we shouldn't be surprized that Bush has selected the Mc Cain plan, troop escalation.

A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush's new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. Congressional Democrats kept up their criticism of plans to add soldiers in the unpopular conflict.

Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and be prepared to deploy under the president's plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced

There are 132,000 troops in Iraq now, and the aforementioned Congression study group reccomends more troops. Ted Kennedy wants to take this idea for a little drive, or at least cut the funding.   

Sen. Edward Kennedy launched a pre-emptive strike Tuesday against President Bush's anticipated plans to send more troops to Iraq.

The Massachusetts Democrat introduced legislation to require congressional approval before force levels can be increased.

Now that the Dems control Congress, how likely is a defunding?

Kennedy also said that the original mandate authorizing the Iraq war has expired because "the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress."

That's matter of opinion, but wait, not all Dems are in the Kennedy camp on this one.

Sens. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, have predicted most Democrats won't deny funding for a troop increase.

The two senators released a letter they sent to Bush, urging him to send additional troops to Iraq. Graham implored Congress not to propose cutting off funding or capping troop levels. Doing so would be "proposing defeat," he said.

Also, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told the Detroit Free Press on Monday that he would consider sending more troops to Iraq if Bush agrees to start withdrawing troops within six months.

And just to keep things nice and confusing, Ollie North, as pro-military as they come, is opposed to troop escalation.When asked by Bill O'Rielly if he agreed  that the troop surge would help.

No, I don’t. None of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and marines that I interviewed in my eighth trip told me they wanted more US boots on the ground. Nearly all expressed just the opposite. ‘We don’t need more American troops; we need more Iraqi troops’ was a common refrain. My concern is that incremental increase in US troop strength…as first suggested last summer during the congressional campaign sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson’s plan to save Vietnam in the 60s by gradual escalation as a way not to lose.

The Vietnam comparison is a bad one, North Vietnam was never invaded in a purely defensive war. Hanoi and it's leader remained intact, a stark contrast to the entire Baathist regime being ousted and replaced democraticly. South Vietnam was left alone and quickly collaped into the North's communist fold.

But that doesn't mean Ollie and the troops he talked to are wrong. if the long term strategy is to establish a new democratic Iraq, then more Iraqi troops make sense. Whether or not a "troop surge" will help remains to be seen.

Personally I don't care if we go big or go long as long as we win.

Mistakes have been made in this war and in every war ever fought, the impotant thing is we disposed of a brutal dictator and his regime and America should be proud of that. We should be proud of the mission and the troops.

Any arguments about the war should pertain to the best path of victory, not an effort to establish defeat. That's the difference between Teddy and Ollie.

Video of Saddam's Hanging

Here's the link to Saddam's hanging, it's a low quality cell phone video, giving me the impression it was taken without permission of the authorities. Meanwhile, the left gets all weepy for a dead dictator. Hat tip, Michelle Malkin.

Saddam Hanged, (video) Ford Honored

In the same week that we lost Gerald Ford to natural causes, Saddam Hussien was hanged by his own people. An interesting contrast if you will, Ford buried with full honors, with six days of observance and thousands of well wishers. Flags will be flown at half mast and the stock markets paused in reverence of the former President.

Saddam on the other hand, was pulled out of a spider hole, given a Nuremberg styled trial and hanged in disgrace. His country danced around his broken body in celebration.

"Now, he is in the garbage of history," said Jawad Abdul-Aziz, who lost his father, three brothers and 22 cousins in the reprisal killings that followed a botched 1982 assassination attempt against Saddam in the Shiite town of Dujail.

Ali Hamza, a 30-year-old university professor, said he went outside to shoot his gun into the air after he learned of Saddam's death.

"Now all the victims' families will be happy because Saddam got his just sentence," said Hamza, who lives in Diwaniyah, a Shiite town 80 miles south of Baghdad.

The timing of the deaths of these two former leaders may be a coincidence, but the contrast is illustrative of why going into Iraq was right.

Saddam's Baathist's Threaten US

Your basic "death to America" rhetoric from the usual suspects.

Saddam Hussein's Baath Party threatened Wednesday to retaliate if the ousted Iraqi leader is executed, warning in an Internet posting it would target U.S. interests anywhere.

The statement appeared on a Web site known to represent the Baath, which was disbanded after U.S.-led forces overthrew Saddam in 2003. The site is believed to be run from Yemen, where a number of exiled members of the party are based.

On Tuesday, Iraq's highest court rejected Saddam's appeal against a conviction and death sentence for the killing of 148 people who were detained after an attempt to assassinate in Dujail, northern Iraq, in 1982. The court said the former president should be hanged within 30 days.

"Our party warns again of the consequences of executing Mr. President and his comrades," the statement said.

Of course they always want to kill infidels, but this time they're reeeeally mad I tell you!

Previous post, Saddam: Hang 'em High