About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

It Is Time To Act Against Iran Now: Documents Show That Iran Is In Iraq

Posted by on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 6:57:48 PM
 Earth to President Bush? Can we please state, on the record, that we are in a de facto state of war with Iran? Based on information coming out of Iraq, as reported by Eli Lake in the New York Sun, Iran seems to be at war with us, and with the semi-stable government of Iraq:

HT: Hugh Hewitt

Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq.

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiit Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

One of the documents captured in the raids, according to two American officials and one Iraqi official, is an assessment of the Iraq civil war and new strategy from the Quds Force. According to the Iraqi source, that assessment is the equivalent of " Iran's Iraq Study Group," a reference to the bipartisan American commission that released war strategy recommendations after the November 7 elections. The document concludes, according to these sources, that Iraq's Sunni neighbors will step up their efforts to aid insurgent groups and that it is imperative for Iran to redouble efforts to retain influence with them, as well as with Shiite militias.

OK, this is for all the so-called experts out there saying that Shi'ites and Sunnis don't work together, or won't work together. It seems the documents we have show exactly the opposite. It shows that they are quite willing to work with their religious opponents. This is a definitive turn in the war, and something that our side of the debate (the conservative side, that is) has been trying to emphasize. According to Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, Saddam had made overtures to al Qaeda in the late 90s, and they accepted those offers, in part. Osama didn't want to be a controlled arm of Saddam's forces, and eventually withdrew from the deal shortly after the calender turned in 2000. However, al-Zarqawi, who saw himself as a sort of rival to bin Laden at that point, accepted whatever help that Saddam was willing to offer. But this alliance that Iran has created shows that the ages old adage--The enemy of my enemy is my friend--is alive and well, and being utilized right now in Iraq.

Rough translations of the Iranian assessment and strategy, as well as a summary of the intelligence haul, have been widely distributed throughout the policy community and are likely to influence the Iraq speech President Bush is expected to deliver in the coming days regarding the way forward for the war, according to two Bush administration officials.

The news that Iran's elite Quds Force would be in contact, and clandestinely cooperating, with Sunni Jihadists who attacked the Golden Mosque in Samarra (one of the holiest shrines in Shiism) on February 22, could shake the alliance Iraq's ruling Shiites have forged in recent years with Tehran. Many Iraq analysts believe the bombing vaulted Iraq into the current stage of its civil war.

The top Quds Force commander — known as Chizari, according to a December 30 story in the Washington Post — was captured inside a compound belonging to Abdul Aziz Hakim, the Shiite leader President Bush last month pressed to help forge a new ruling coalition that excludes a firebrand Shiite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr.

According to one Iraqi official, the two Quds commanders were in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government, which had requested more senior Iranian points of contact when the government complained about Shiite death squad activity. The negotiations were part of an Iraqi effort to establish new rules of the road between Baghdad and Tehran. This arrangement was ironed out by Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, when he was in Tehran at the end of November.

While Iran has openly supported Iraqi Shiite militias involved in attacks on American soldiers, the Quds Force connection to Sunni insurgents has been murkier.

In 2003, coalition forces captured a playbook outlining Iranian intentions to support insurgents of both stripes, but its authenticity was disputed.

American intelligence reports have suggested that export/import operations run by Sunni terrorists in Fallujah in 2004 received goods from the revolutionary guard.

"We have seen bits and piece of things before, but it was highly compartmentalized suggesting the Iranian link to Sunni groups," a military official said.

A former Iran analyst for the Pentagon who also worked as an adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, Michael Rubin, said yesterday: "There has been lots of information suggesting that Iran has not limited its outreach just to the Shiites, but this has been disputed."

He added, "When documents like this are found, usually intelligence officials may confirm their authenticity but argue they prove nothing because they do not reflect a decision to operationalize things."

A former State Department senior analyst on Iraq and Iran who left government service in 2005, Wayne White, said he did not think it was likely the Quds Force was supporting Sunni terrorists who were targeting Shiite political leaders and civilians, but stressed he did not know.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that al-Quds forces are on the ground and active in Iraq," he said. "That's about it. I saw evidence that Moqtada al Sadr was in contact with Sunni Arab insurgents in western Iraq, but I never saw evidence of Iran in that loop."

Mr. White added, "One problem that we all have is that people consistently conduct analysis assuming that the actor is going to act predictably or rationally based on their overall mindset or ideology. Sometimes people don't."

One example of a mindset that may hinder analysis of Iranian involvement is the belief that Iran would never have any dealings with militant Sunni Arabs. But they allowed hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives to escape from Afghanistan across their territory in 2002," he said.

Even al-Sadr has extended a hand of friendship to the Sunnis, and he's a Shi'ite. They hate us there. They want us out of Iraq, or dead, or both. It's time we wake up and realize this. At this point, going after al-Sadr's militias isn't the solution. It's part of the overall solution to the problems in Iraq, but we've got to kill this alliance once and for all.

Iran is neck deep in the Iraq phase of this war, and it's about time we catch onto this fact. We've always had suspicions of this. The Pentagon--CENTCOM specifically--has stated that our troops have intercepted munitions, IEDs, and weapons going into Iraq from Iran. We know that Syria's Hezbollah wing has been training Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. To say that Iran has no hand in this war is idiotic. (Yes, the Hezbollah group operating out of Syria is involved, but Iran controls Hezbollah.)

And I hope that Jimmy Baker's paying attention. It was his pitiful group that stated we needed to include Iran in the Iraq phase of this war. Based on this, I'd say they're already involved, and it's not on the side of supporting a free and democratic Iraq. Their goal is to destroy that government. The ISG report is now proven to be utterly worthless in terms of assessments, and James Baker's been proven to be a nutter know-nothing.

It's time we step up and warn Iran to back off on Iraq, and back up that warning with a clear and concise threat. The next thing Iran migfht be witnessing is an airstrike on their nuclear facilities if they don't quit meddling. Will we issue such a threat, or carry through on it if we issue it? I don't know. I'd like to think so, but based on what we're seeing right now, I wouldn't hold my breath. However we can't deny Iran's involvement in Iraq, and we must do whatever it takes to end it.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And So The Fight Begins In The House

Posted by on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:22:52 AM
 Typical, isn't it? The Democrats have not even gained the majority, officially, and Pelosi and Company are already pushing an effort to shut the GOP out of having any saywith legislation in their "first 100 hours."

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems. Yet in attempting to pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years.

Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.

"There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

It won't be easy to woo the "Blue Dog Dems" over to the gOP's side, but one certain bills they might be able to if they make the right case for such a defection. The minimum wage bill should be one of the first things the GOP tries to work an end run on. Arizona passed a new minimum wage hike in November, and employers here are already grumbling about it. Many businesses that sought holiday time employees have already handed out those final paychecks, and sent those people on their merry way. They can't retain that workforce because they can't afford to.

The problem that so many people in favor of such hikes keep forgetting is that when the wages go up, businesses have to compensate for that. While fools like Pelosi and her Democratic cronies think that their forcing businesses to take in less profits by forcing them to pay their employees more, they fail to take into account that the majority of businesses in the US are privately-owned, small, mom-and-pop businesses. Those businesses, to compensate for the wage hike, have to charge more for goods and services. When minimum wage gets a boost, the cost of living goes up, as well.

Yeah, it'd be great if everyone around the country could earn $10 or $20 an hour. And it'd be great if employers could afford to do that. Most can't. The minimum wage is supposed to be an entry-level wage. And every time the wage is upped, and the price of goods and services go up, people begin complaining that, once again, they can't afford to live on their wage. It's a neverending cycle. You're not supposed to spend your life stuck at the same wage. As you improve as an employee, you get raises. As you improve yourself, through schooling and training, you move onto other better jobs. And that means your wage imroves in the workforce. That's how it works, and it doesn't need more intereference from the government by jacking up the entry-level wage.

That's the case the GOP has to make to the "Blue Dogs" if they're going to get a few defectors to stop a bill like this, or any other that they recognize as being non-essential for the country. The saving grace the GOP should keep in mind is that these moderate/conservative Democrats were the ones who put their foot down on Pelosi when she started manuevering in November. They're not going to stand for her out-of-the-mainstream, liberal ideas.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islamicists Retreat From Somalia

Posted by on Monday, January 01, 2007 4:01:55 PM
 
They've given up the ghost, and have pulled back from the advancing Ethiopian forces, according to the Washington Times. The Islamicists have been routed, and are fleeing to Kenya:

Islamist fighters abandoned the last major town they held early today and were seen heading south toward the Kenyan border while government forces approached slowly because of land mines, residents and a government spokesman said.

The Islamist forces began to disintegrate after a night of artillery attacks at the front line and following a mutiny within its ranks, witnesses said. Government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari said he had information that Islamist forces were moving south toward the Kenyan border.

"The Islamists have fled Kismayu, and our troops are on the way," Mr. Dinari said.

Leila Ali, a local radio journalist, confirmed that forces of the Islamic Courts Union had left the city and that no guerrillas were on the streets.

Yesterday in Kismayu, Somalia's third-largest city, an estimated 3,000 Islamist fighters were preparing for a bloody showdown, but guerrilla Rabi Ahmed told the Associated Press that about 50 militiamen in the city were refusing to go to the front and fight.

Since Ethiopia and the Somali government forces began this campaign, the Islamicists have not won a single encounter, and have been forced to retreat each time. Now there's word that there are those in their ranks that are refusing to fight, and I sincerely doubt that it's more than fifty. If it were only fifty, they would have held the line against the advancing forces. I'm guessing it's more like a couple hundred that have mutinied. It doesn't really matter though because they lost Somalia. Their fight is over right now.

The Islamicists will be back. There's no doubt about it, and we shouldn't think that their retreat is anything but temporary. Once out of Somalia, and once they've regrouped, they'll wage that guerilla campaign against a liberated Somalia. Will it be as bad as the guerilla warfare in Iraq? Possibly, but at least with both the Ethiopians and pro-government Somali forces there now there's a better chance that they can turn back the type of attacks that the Islamicists will launch.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Incredibly Hilarious James Lileks

Posted by on Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:46:27 AM
 While columnists pound away at their desks about what happened in 2006 (Thomas and I are no exception), James Lileks takes a look back ... at 2007?

Hat-Tip: Hugh Hewitt

History, a wise man said, is a pack of tricks we play on the dead. Very well: Let's get out the deck and deal. As we stand on the cusp of 2008, let's look back on the follies of 2007.

North Korea returned to the negotiating table and announced it wants a Playstation 3 and a ham sandwich. Also a pony. Talks broke up when the Americans refused to supply a Playstation because they bought North Korea an Xbox last time, and it just sat in the closet.

The new Democratic Congress repealed the Patriot Act, banned racial profiling at airport checkpoints, required the executive branch to inform terrorists by certified mail that their phones were tapped, and began efforts to revive the draft. As Speaker Pelosi put it, "This is not about this war. This is about setting the stage for the racial and class-based rhetoric that will automatically undermine the attempts to fight the next war. Wait a minute, is this mike on? Oh, crap."

The bird flu killed millions — of birds.

Rumors of presidential irrelevance were put to rest when President Bush appeared in Punxsutawney, Pa., and saw his shadow, thereby predicting six more weeks of Keith Olbermann monologues.

Fidel Castro died and lay in state for 48 hours while Cubans filed past to pay their respects in the traditional manner. Experts estimated that 24,302 liters of spittle were expelled. Brother Raul declared a "National Day of Mourning and Mopping Up."

North Korea tested a nuclear bomb attached to a medium-range missile; it was headed towards a U.S. carrier group before it was destroyed. The United States subsequently tested several nuclear missiles on North Korean soil. The tests were successful.

Iraq remained a mixed bag. The Kurdish parts were peaceful and prosperous, and hence unreported upon. Evidence of Syrian and Iranian complicity in Iraqi violence continued to accumulate, forcing James Baker to suggest it may be necessary to invade Israel and give Syria the Golan Heights by force. The Bush doctrine, meanwhile, was quietly amended: You're Either With Us Or Against Us. Whatever: It's All Good.

Terror plots in London continued to be unearthed daily. The Labor government, seeking to defuse the more immediate threat of Islamophobia, forbade anti-terrorist squad members from wearing a cross during raids and required all policemen to remove their shoes before raiding mosques.

Vladimir Putin prepared for his eventual retirement in 2008 by forcing the Russian Parliament to create a position called "Czar," which he described as "purely ceremonial." Critics of his imperial ambitions and corrupt, gangster-style government were not reassured by the theft of Lenin's body, which turned up on eBay, was then stolen from the winning bidder and was finally discovered in a London alley. Poisoned.

American politics were in that blessed period between elections, but jockeying continued for the presidential spot in both parties. Hillary Clinton made a masterful move to the center by coming out against gay marriage for stem cells; Barack Obama continued to run on a platform of being Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney continued to remind people of his impressive chin. Rudy Guiliani rolled out a new campaign slogan: "Why? Because I'll Nuke Them Old-School Style if I Have To, and You Know It," while John McCain's team came up with a GOP base-tested slogan, "Suck It Up, Haters! It's Him or the Witch."

In Iran, President Ahmadinejad said, "I have signed legislation outlawing Israel, Britain and the United States. The bombing begins in 18 minutes!"

Commentators observed that he was obviously channeling a Reagan joke made when the mike was off and noted the difficulties Gorbachev faced in his bid to bring about world peace. The bombing actually did begin 18 minutes later, leading to renewed calls for stiff U.N. sanctions on toner cartridges, a move that would severely crimp Iran's ability to make copies of its instructions to its regional operatives.

Something happened somewhere in Africa, but no one was quite sure. It was pretty bad though.

Nothing happened in China, as far as we could tell. Isn't that peculiar? One billion-plus people, and nothing seems to happen. It's like they're just waiting. For what? Who knows.

Blogging will continue to be light today. Not just because we are both down sick with this bloody cold, but because our sides hurt so much from laughing at this hilarious column.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Little Johnny Wants To Play President

Posted by on Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:08:30 AM
We can all breathe a sigh of relief now. John Edwards is running for president, again:

Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards is running for president for a second time, his campaign said Wednesday.

The former North Carolina senator plans to formally announce his candidacy Thursday from New Orleans' 9th Ward, which was hard hit by Hurricane Katrina. But his campaign got a little ahead of itself Wednesday and announced his intentions online.

"Better a day earlier than a day late," said Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards' adviser.

On the eve of the formal launch of his candidacy, Edwards visited the site of his planned announcement Wednesday for a photo opportunity. He did yard work at the home of Orelia Tyler, 54, whose house was completely gutted by Hurricane Katrina and is close to being rebuilt.

Edwards' impromptu announcement was made in the wake of President Gerald Ford's death and after his campaign accidentally launched his campaign Web site a day early, then shut it back down.

The campaign Web site's logo is "John Edwards 08" and its slogan is "Tomorrow begins today."

Tomorrow begins today? How lame can this guy get? The AP report put up by Breitbart does a good job of pushing his camapign agenda, which includes:

"This campaign is about changing America," the Web site read, listing five priorities that fit neatly with Edwards' message of economic equality: "Providing universal health care for all Americans," "Rebuilding America's middle class and eliminating poverty," and "Creating tax fairness by rewarding work, not just wealth."

Eliminating poverty? Didn't LBJ try that with his failed "war on poverty?" I thought so. Look, this guy is a trial lawyer. He likes to make you thik that you matter to him, and that he cares. The problem is that he really doesn't. His trial fiasco of channeling the dead baby in court was a sham, and he reaped a nice little paychekc for that case. In addition to that, he's a one term senator. Elected in '98, he was soundly defeated in 2004, twice. He lost his Senate seat then, and he and John Kerry were defeated by President Bush.

And if anyone thinks that he gives a rat's patoot about those still trying to clean up from Katrina in New Orleans, think again. His press people kept the media there, but at a distance so they could see him working with about 30 students. And my suspicion is that those students worked up more ofa sweat than he did. The AP report keeps bringing up his "humble" beginnings, and his "fallback" education in textile management. Give me a break. This guy isn't anywhere near a "man of the people." And to prove that, we only have to look at the 2004 election where he and John Kerry jetted around the country like a couple of playbys.

In the end, the primaries will show how much of a lightweight this guy is. We can breathe a sigh of relief in the fact that yet another inept boob has tossed their hat into the ring. But like Obama, Edwards is nothing special, and his inexperience will show in the end. And for the record, I agree with our editor: There are far more pressing matters to address right now than which dolt is throwing their hat into a ring that will most definitely shrink over the course of the next year. Too many prognosticators are picking this person or that, and the primaries haven't even started up yet.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Troops Stand On The Verge Of Entering Mogadishu

Posted by on Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:40:29 AM
Reports coming out of Somalia are that the pro-government Somali troops that hooked up with Ehtiopian forces are on the verge of going into "The Mog." But the New York Times reports that the streets are empty of Islamist forces:

The Islamist forces who have controlled much of Somalia in recent months suddenly vanished from the streets of the capital, Mogadishu, residents said Wednesday night, just as thousands of rival troops massed 15 miles away.

In the past few days, Ethiopian-backed forces, with tacit approval from the United States, have unleashed tanks, helicopter gunships and jet fighters on the Islamists, decimating their military and paving the way for the internationally recognized transitional government of Somalia to assert control.

Even so, the Islamists, who have been regarded as a regional menace by Ethiopia and the United States, had repeatedly vowed to fight to the death for their religion and their land, making their disappearance that much more unexpected.

Fortified checkpoints across the city — in front of the radio station, at the airport, at the main roads leading into Mogadishu and outside police stations — were abruptly abandoned Wednesday night, residents said.

Many of the teenage troops who made up the backbone of the Islamist army had blended back into the civilian population, walking around without guns or their trademark green skullcaps.

The sudden reversal left it unclear whether a war that had threatened to consume the Horn of Africa had quickly ended, or the Islamists had merely gone underground, preparing to wage a guerrilla insurgency, as some leaders had threatened.

“The whole city is just waiting,” said Sheik Ahmed Shiro, a Koranic teacher in Mogadishu.

At 10 p.m. on Wednesday, several Islamist leaders emerged to hold a news conference at their headquarters in Mogadishu. They did not explicitly concede defeat to the transitional government, but seemed to be preparing their forces for such an eventuality. “We need our soldiers to return to their positions for the sake of the people,” said Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, one of the leaders. “Even if your positions are transferred to the government, you must stay where you are and make sure Mogadishu is as safe as it was before.”

As he spoke, Mogadishu was rapidly descending back into the clan-based anarchy that had been its hallmark for most of the past 15 years, before the Islamists came to power and pacified the city.

Yes, they're blending back in, and it'll be a cold day in H*ll when they do give up. They're digging in for an insurgency, much like the one in Iraq. The idea that the Islamists would simply give up and go away is a fool's notion. And I doubt either set of soldiers would be willing to make the mistake of letting their guards down going into "The Mog."

Meanwhile, I take issue with the Times assessment that the Islamists "pacified" the city. Their idea of pacification closely mirrors the Taliban's version. From The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright:

"Women you should not step outside your residence," the new government ordered. Women were a particular target, as might be expected from men who has so little experience of their company. "If women are going outside with fashionable, ornamental, tight and chrming clothes to show themselves," the decree continued, "they will be cursed by the Islamic Sharia and should never expect to go to heaven." Work and schooling for women were halted at once, which destroyed the health-care system, the civil service, and effectively eliminated elementary education. Forty percent of the doctors, half of the government workers, and seven out of ten teachers were women. Under the Taliban, many of them would become beggers.

The Taliban also turned their attention to ordinary pleasure. They forbade kite flying and dog racing. Trained pigeons were slaughtered. According to the Taliban penal code, "unclean things" were banned. an all purpose category that included: "pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satelliete dishes, cinematography, any equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, televisions, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards." --pgs 230-231, The Looming Tower

Remember that when the Islamists rose to power in Somalia it was during the time of the World Cup soccer games. And I picked up a story where a number of TV watchers were shot because, well, they were watching TV. That is their shari'a, and that was the punishment. See, the Islamists don't care about the safety and well-being of the citizens. They care about one thing, and that's shari'a law, and whether or not you're breaking it. Somalia was slowly descending on that path, and it's yet to be seen if the Ethiopian and Somali forces can wrest power away from them.

One things for sure. If they do manage to get power back, each and every Islamist in Somalia had better either be shot, or kicked out of the counrtry because they will try to seize power again.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joseph Rago Swings, and Strikes Out

Posted by on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:42:11 PM
 It's tiring when we have to continue teaching this lesson, but eventually, the monkeys in the MSM will get this. On 20 December, Joseph Rago penned a particularly scathing indictment of blogs and bloggers. Now, the MSM has had a fixation on coming after the blogosphere as a whole since we took down their "saint," Dan Rather. But Mr. rago doesn't seem to comprehend the worth of the blogs when it comes to the media. In fact, he states, in part, that we're overinflating ourselves:

The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.

More success is met in purveying opinion and comment. Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life. Blogs, they say, tend to disinhibit. Maybe so. But politics weren't much rarefied when Andrew Jackson was president, either. The larger problem with blogs, it seems to me, is quality. Most of them are pretty awful. Many, even some with large followings, are downright appalling.

We "ride along" with the dead tree industry? If we were to ride along, as he states, then we would be sharing the mantra and the same shameless ignorance of facts that the media has perpetuated in recent years. It was bloggers that caught Dan Rather peddling phony memos to the public in a 60 Minutes II expose against a sitting president. It was bloggers that caught Eason Jordan making up lies about the alleged abust journalists were suffering at the hands of our troops. It was bloggers that led the charge against John Kerry and his lies that he continued to push about his military record during Vietnam, which was the focal point of his 2004 campaign. Bloggers uncovered the "fauxtography" of Reuters during the Israeli/Hezbollah war. And bloggers have called the AP on the carpet recently over whether or not Jamil Hussein exists in Iraq, and whether or not he is truly an Iraqi police officer. Where was the media in reporting these stories? Oh, that is right; they were not there. They refused to report these stories for whatever feeble excuse they could find.

As for the quality of blogs, we can only speak the truth of those that we read consistently and daily. Hugh Hewitt, Captain Ed @ Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Professor Glenn Reynolds @ InstaPundit, Charles Johnson @ Little Green Footballs, Hot Air, and Pajamas Media are the big guns iun the center-right blogosphere. They are the best of the best, and show it each and every day they post. We have run across smaller sites, like those from the 101st Fighting Keebees that are good, and near the par set by the elites. But let us face hard facts. There are ovger fifty million blogs on the Internet. Not every one of them will be stellar and astounding. But those blogs out there do their best to do the job they believe is their niche. For example, Thomas, Sabrina, and myself all do our best everyday to bring news to our readers, and provide thoughtful commentary. If Mr. Rago has a problem with that, then it is perhaps the writing style he dislikes as opposed to the blogger.

The way we write affects both style and substance. The loquacious formulations of late Henry James, for instance, owe in part to his arthritis, which made longhand impossible, and instead he dictated his writing to a secretary. In this aspect, journalism as practiced via blog appears to be a change for the worse. That is, the inferiority of the medium is rooted in its new, distinctive literary form. Its closest analogue might be the (poorly kept) diary or commonplace book, or the note scrawled to oneself on the back of an envelope--though these things are not meant for public consumption. The reason for a blog's being is: Here's my opinion, right now.

The right now is partially a function of technology, which makes instantaneity possible, and also a function of a culture that valorizes the up-to-the-minute above all else. But there is no inherent virtue to instantaneity. Traditional daily reporting--the news--already rushes ahead at a pretty good clip, breakneck even, and suffers for it. On the Internet all this is accelerated.

My turn. First off, we have a rule at the Asylum, and on our new site (the link will be available shortly): Always professional, Never personal. We take the news we have, as up-to-date as it can be, and not only relay that information, but offer our thoughts on it. The thoughts will not change because they're based on our ideology. Our ideology is what drove us to begin blogging in the first place because we could clearly see the bias in the media. The difference between the media and blogs is that they refuse to admit that there is a bias in their reporting, and we openly admit it. ANY visitor to The Asylum knows they're coming to a center-right site. There is a distinctive conservative side to our ANALYSIS, but it's not there in our reporting. The reporting, literally, comes from the media. We cite a portion, or all, of the story, and let the reader see where our complaints are. There's no argument that we're taking anything out of context because you can clearly read it in it's context--the exact and precise manner in which it was reported.

And I take issue with the idea that he perpetuates that news moves at a "breakneck" pace. Dan Rather made his phony report, and withing HOURS of that report, his piece was debunked by a team of experts that had worked on those sorts of typewriters. By the next morning, Hugh Hewitt was lining up typewriter experts for his afternoon show to "testify" about what they knew. Where was the media? Asleep at the switch, or circling the wagons to protect a colleague. Is that what he calls reporting? Where was the media demanding an explanation and proof of Eason Jordan's unfounded allegations? Where was the media in asking Reuters why they were doctoring photos to show more devestation in Lebanon during the Hezbollah/Israeli affair earlier this year. They were, much like the moderate Muslims after a terrorist attack, noticeably absent. The one complaint that many bloggers have regarding the media is that they don't fact-check enough, and it has become painfully obvious in recent years that this is a true statement.

The blogs must be timely if they are to influence politics. This element--here's my opinion--is necessarily modified and partly determined by the right now. Instant response, with not even a day of delay, impairs rigor. It is also a coagulant for orthodoxies. We rarely encounter sustained or systematic blog thought--instead, panics and manias; endless rehearsings of arguments put forward elsewhere; and a tendency to substitute ideology for cognition. The participatory Internet, in combination with the hyperlink, which allows sites to interrelate, appears to encourage mobs and mob behavior.

This cross-referential and interactive arrangement, in theory, should allow for some resolution to divisive issues, with the market sorting out the vagaries of individual analysis. Not in practice. The Internet is very good at connecting and isolating people who are in agreement, not so good at engaging those who aren't. The petty interpolitical feuding mainly points out that someone is a liar or an idiot or both.

We do not institute panics or manias. A swarm develops on the heels of a story that bloggers all take notice about, such as the Eason Jordan incident. Eason Jordan sat at the Davos Conference in Switzerland and literally indicted our troops in a war crime. No proof was presented then, or after the fact. And he did not come out and state that he misspoke. His silence was deafening on the issue; basically a "shut up and deal" sort of response to the bloggers who immediately demanded answers. The swarm grew from a few into a full on attack. Put up or shut up, was our response to his allegations. There was no panic involved. The argument was reasoned, and shared by the majority of bloggers demanding answers. We wanted to see his proof. We did not think he was an idiot for making the comment. We wanted his proof. When none was forthcoming, the pressure intensified to the point where CNN was left with no alternative but to cut him loose. They could not have a loose cannon like him working for them. His statement was a detriment to their network because the readers of those sites were levying pressure on them.

As for his insinuation that we refer to people who do not agree with our opinions as idiots, that is completely untrue. Thomas and I are in chat rooms on a daily basis dealing with people who disagree with us, and vice versa. They are not idiots. We disagree, and we debate the issues. The "idiots" that he may believe are out there are those who engage in partisan rhetoric, and vitriolic, personal attacks. But those we disagree with we hold no personal grudge against. For example, our editor Thomas Lindaman is a libertarian, by his own definition. We do not always see eye-to-eye on an issue. However, he respects our opinions, and never puts us down for them. Likewise, he recognizes the talent that comes along with our work. Otherwise, we would not be writing for him. Personal attacks, as Thomas pointed out above, are not welcome here. Now, the odd slam we occasionally put up (referring to someone as a "nutter," a fool, or an imbecile) is not meant to be a personal attack. We do not mean it that way. WE are simply stating our opinion at that moment regarding their argument. William F. Buckley is equally brilliant as he is foolish at times, but we still have a healthy dose of respect for the man.

Because political blogs are predictable, they are excruciatingly boring. More acutely, they promote intellectual disingenuousness, with every constituency hostage to its assumptions and the party line. Thus the right-leaning blogs exhaustively pursue second-order distractions--John Kerry always providing useful material--while leaving underexamined more fundamental issues, say, Iraq. Conservatives have long taken it as self-evident that the press unfavorably distorts the war, which may be the case; but today that country is a vastation, and the unified field theory of media bias has not been altered one jot.

The "party line" argument that Mr. Rago presents here doesn't hold water. Yes, there are favorite "beating posts" that the center-right enjoy (It's not like we're forcing John Kerry to make a fool of himself), and the idea that we aren't critical of certain issues is positively preposterous. Hugh Hewitt was joined by a chorus of blogs hammering away at the Senate over judicial nomineesa. Michelle Malkin ahas a veritable cadre of blogs that are on her side when it comes to the issue of immigration. And the list of center-right blogs that have been critical of the strategy in Iraq is longer than we have room for in this post. WE are intellectually honest in our arguments, which sets us apart fromt he media on another level. We're willing to question the president and the administration when things don't seem right. We have no problem with that. On the flip side, the Left attacks us for the same reasons that Mr. Rago has outlined here, and they stand in lock-step loyalty to their party. If there is any disingenuousness in the blogosphere, it is profoundly on the Left side.

The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Rago has failed to grasp the idea of the blogs. I would suggest a couple of books so he might bone up on the subject, and understand it better. Blog by Hugh Hewitt is an essential book for the new blogger who wants to understand the 'sphere, how it works, and what people expect from a blog (and no, it does not have to be a poli-blog). Additionally, Professor Reynold's work, An Army of Davids, takes us beyond the blogs, and shows how the blogs started a technological revolution that is devestating the status quo establishment.

Instead of taking dirty swipes using fifty-cent words that the average reader couldn't comprehend, Mr. Rago should have taken a closer look at the conglomerate he decided to indict. They are, after all, having a significant impact on the world. We have broken more "scandals" than I can count, and have shown the media that there is a new sheriff in town. It's the people, and we do weild the power around here. If he doubts that, he might want to take a close look at the MSM ratings on TV, and the circulation numbers for what my beautiful wife terms as the "dead-tree industry." They're dying a slow, painful death right now. In the end, we may not be the ones who deal the death blow, but we've driven enough stakes into their hear tthat they're little more than the punchline to a very bad joke. It shows, and that's where we opened up some eyes. We're a legitimate group of people, and we're anything but amateurs. Every one of the bloggers we listed here are working professionals that are experts in their own right. Likewise, the trio here aren't slouches. We have our expertise in areas that I'm sure Mr. rago only dreams of. But, then again, what can you expect out of a twenty-three year old kid who thinks he has it all figured out?

Thomas and Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ethiopia Vs. Islamicists: Guess Who's On The Ropes?

Posted by on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 9:24:23 AM
 
Somalia and Ethiopia have been at war now for almost a week. Ethiopia is kicking the ever-living snot out of the Islamicists to the point where they were able to rout the Somalis in the opening days. And that rout, apparently, is still going on. Now, it seems that the tide has significantly shifted as pro-government troops, backed by Ethiopian forces, are moving on Mogadishu, in what I could only classify as Islam's Waterloo in Africa:

Somalia’s pro-government troops captured a key southern town from their Islamist rivals on Wednesday.

Resident Mahamud Ismail said from the town of Jowhar, 90 kilometres north of the Islamist-held capital, "The government has taken over Jowhar. I can see government troops on top of armoured vehicles chasing Islamists troops ... heading toward Mogadishu."

Witnesses said residents left their houses to cheer pro-government troops, backed by Ethiopian tanks, which pursued the Islamists as sporadic gunfire echoed in the air.

The retreating Islamists appeared to be heeding a call by their senior leader Shaikh Sharif Ahmed for forces to gather in Mogadishu to prepare for a long war against old foe Ethiopia.

Yesterday, there was a call that went up from the Islamicists to the UN to intervene and lay down a cease-fire. Personally, if I were Ethiopia, and a cease-fire was instituted, I wouldn't abide by it. I'd keep right on trucking until the Islamicists were dead, or routed out of the country completely. But, See-Dubya over at Hot Air notes that John Bolton's interim replacement is sounding a lot like a diplomat right now. Now, we all know that their job is to promote peace and dialogue, and sometimes they have to sound like the weenies they are. However, See-Dubya makes another note about Johnathan Stevenson, a graduate of the Naval War College, who had this to say:

Thus far, the major powers have tacitly allowed Ethiopia and Eritrea to keep assets deployed in Somalia while pressuring both to refrain from escalating to all-out war. But these weak constraints cannot produce operational equilibrium between the TFG and the Islamic Courts Union for long enough to allow effective major-power attention to gravitate to Somalia before war arises.

Absent an unattainably strong peace-enforcement contingent, the only solution would appear to be robust diplomacy aimed at stabilizing the Somali situation by a power-sharing arrangement between the TFG and the Islamic Courts.

Whoa. Hold on there, Tex. Did he just say "power-sharing?" Mr. Stevenson is a professor of strategic studies, and with the above statement, you'd have to wonder where he's coming from. It sure sounds a lot like a UN diplomat rather than a professor teaching young men about warfare. And why in God's name would he promote a power-sharing plan? The Islamicists seized power in Somalia; sometimes by force, other times through negotiation. But they did seize it, nonetheless. There should be no "power-sharing" idea. The Ethiopians were there, at the behest of the UIC, as a peacekeeping force after the civil war there in February.

Why is it that when Islamicists rise to power, threaten other nations, then said nation kicks their backside, everyone wants to feel sorry for them rather than condemning them? It seems to me that if you start something, you should be finishing it, not calling on the literal "big brother" to come and break it up. If the UN steps in on this, and Ethiopia agress to a cease-fire, they're going to be right back at it in a couple of months. The Islamicists will pull back, lick their wounds, rearm, and potentially with more dangerous and destructive weapons, and go right back after Ethiopian forces there again.

No, I say let them fight it out. Ethiopia is on the verge of winning this little skirmish. I say let them do it.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ethiopia's Winning, and the Islamicists Are Whining.

Posted by on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:58:17 PM
 Well, well, well. It seems that the Islamofascists in Somalia aren't as much the big, bad wolf as many believed them to be. It seems that they're starting to turn tail and run in the face of advancing Ethiopian forces that are threatening to overrun Somali Islamicist positions:

Somalia government soldiers, joined by troops from neighboring Ethiopia, advanced toward Somalia's capital Tuesday as Islamic fighters dug in and promised a "new phase" in the war — a chilling pronouncement from a movement that has threatened suicide attacks.

Somalia called on the Council of Islamic Courts militias, bloodied by a week of artillery and mortar attacks, to surrender and promised amnesty if they lay down their weapons, government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari said.

A U.N. official, meanwhile, said Tuesday that Ethiopian-backed government troops were advancing on Mogadishu, the capital, from two directions and facing stiff resistance.

Francois Lonseny Fall, the top U.N. envoy to Somalia, also said 35,000 Somalis had crossed into neighboring Kenya to escape the fighting, which forced the U.N. to suspend aid delivery to two million Somalis.

As many as 1,000 people may have been killed and 3,000 wounded in the fighting, many of them foreign radicals, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said.

Meles said about 3,000 to 4,000 Ethiopian forces, which entered Somalia on Saturday, may soon wrap up their offensive against the Islamic militias that until recent days controlled most of southern part of the country.

"As soon as we have accomplished our mission — and about half of our mission is done, and the rest shouldn't take long — we'll be out," Meles told reporters in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa.
The U.N. envoy, Fall, called the fighting "disastrous" for the Somlian people and asked the Security Council for an immediate ceasefire. But diplomats said it was unlikely the council would act soon.
A U.S. State Department spokesman in Washington appeared to endorse Ethiopia's military action, saying it had "genuine security concerns" about the growth of powerful Islamic militias next door.

The spokesman, Gonzalo Gallegos, said he had no information on whether the U.S., which is concerned about the militia's ties to foreign Islamic militants, was aiding the Ethiopian military with supplies.

Ethiopia sent fighter jets streaking deep into militia-held areas Sunday to help Somalia's U.N.-recognized government push back the Islamic militias. Ethiopia bombed the country's two main airports and helped government forces capture several villages.

Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, a top leader of the Islamic group, accused Ethiopian troops of massacring 50 civilians in the central town of Cadado. Ethiopian officials were not immediately available to respond.

Anyone else notice hos the Islamic nutters are screaming for a cease-fire? Sound familiar? It's pretty much what Hezbollah pulled when they bit off more than they could chew against Israel, but the ineptitude of Olmert proved to be enough to give Hezbollah as chance to pressure a cease-fire. It just goes to show who the real paper tiger is here. And, of course, because they're losing, they're threatening the suicide bombings while lying about the civilian casualties that the Ethiopian forces have "caused." Welcome to war, baby. This ain't your daddy's war. This is modern warfare where one side is going to prevail because it believes in removing a direct threat to its existence.

And the Islamicists in Somaliea now realize that they're defeated. They're retreating, and their begging the UN to step in. But as the report says, it's unlikely the UN will step in quick enough to end this war, and preserve "victory" for themselves. The problem is that they really had no victory to begin with. They thought that with the weapons and munitions that they were getting--as reported by Pajamas Media earlier this month, and covered by my talented wife--through Iran that they had a chance on taking another nation. What they didn't expect was that Ethiopia was going to fight back this hard, and strike this fast.

With a little hope, and a lot of firepower, maybe they can push the Islamicists out of Somalia. At the very least, this should be a lesson that the Islamic Courts learn, and hopefully take to heart. They're not ready to push against other African nations that are willing to fight against the Islamofascist threat.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Democrats--"Forget Immigration Reform."

Posted by on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:58:03 AM
 Before the new Congress changes hands, before Nancy Pelosi is even officially named the Speaker of the House, the Democrats are already linig up their wish lists. And on the issue of immigration, it seems that they are, once again, ignoring the will of the people:

Counting on the support of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and their Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship than would a bill that the Senate passed in the spring.

The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.

The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.

Details of the bill, which would be introduced early next year, are being drafted. The lawmakers, who hope for bipartisan support, will almost certainly face pressure to compromise on the issues from some Republicans and conservative Democrats.

The immigration reform bill was the ONLY thing the GOP Congress managed to get right, and even then it took a lot of howling from the public. And now the Democrats have decided to buck the voice of the people, and move towards a virtual amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States. It is appalling and outrageous that they would pull such a stunt.

In addition, the border fence was the cornerstone of the legislation. A move towards enforcing border security, and making it more difficult for illegals to enter the United States. Apparently, the Democrats believe differently. So, get up off of your butts, and call these clowns. Let them know you DO NOT approve of this idea, and serve them a reminder that this is not going to look good in 2008 when the House goes back up for reelection, again.

Nancy Pelosi is either just simply this stupid, or she is the most inept and obtuse representative to serve in the House since Tip O'Neil. The benefit Tip had over her was he was not as stupid as she is. Again, her ignorance shows through, and moves like this will not only lead to her downfall, but it could very well spell a removal of her party from power for an extended duration. This is not a smart move, and I am urging our readers to make their voices be heard, again.

Remind incoming Speaker Pelosi that this is the United States. It is a sovereign nation with laws. Illegal aliens are directly violating our laws, as are those who employ them, and they continue to thumb their noses at us. This cannot stand, and should not stand. We must gain control of our borders for security matters, and the first step in that is tougher enforcement, and the fence. Without them, and the Democrats clearly could care less about that, this nation will remain to be vulnerable.

Call your representatives at 202-225-3121. Let them know you are not happy, and you want that bill adhered to.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It has begun: Somalia And Ethiopia Are At War

Posted by on Sunday, December 24, 2006 2:30:29 PM
 The fear that Somalia and Ethiopia would go to war has become a reality as reported by AP wire services today:

Ethiopia sent fighter jets into Somalia and bombarded several towns Sunday in a dramatic attack against Somalia's powerful Islamic movement, and Ethiopia's prime minister said his country had been "forced to enter a war."

Charles Johnson has an expanded story that is irritatingly absent at the link he found. That link is the same as the one above, but the AP has decided to truncate the story to the above paragraph. This is what's on LGF--the original story that they ran this morning:

Ethiopia launched an attack Sunday on Somalia’s powerful Islamic movement, sending fighter jets across the border and bombarding several towns in a major escalation of the violence that threatens to engulf the Horn of Africa.

Ethiopia confirmed the attacks, the first time it has acknowledged that its troops were fighting in Somalia, though witnesses have reported their presence for weeks.

“After too much patience, the Ethiopian government has taken a self-defensive measure and has begun counterattacking the aggressive extremist forces of the (Islamic council) and foreign terrorist groups,” said Ethiopia’s foreign affairs spokesman, Solomon Abebe.

The Council of Islamic Courts has vowed to drive out troops from neighboring Ethiopia, a largely Christian nation that is providing military support to Somalia’s U.N.-backed government.

“They are cowards,” said Sheik Mohamoud Ibrahim Suley, an official with Somalia’s Council of Islamic Courts. “They are afraid of the face-to-face war and resorted to airstrikes. I hope God will help us shoot down their planes.”

Isn't this wonderful that these two nations couldn't wait until AFTER the holidays? Our troops are probably on alert over there right now, just in case this spirals out of control quickly. These two nations have been poised for war since this past Tuesday. And the ramifications of this war could be blatantly obvious; it threatens to engulf the region. This isn't just about one nation hating another. This is about another front in the overall war on Islamofascist terrorism. Somalia is now under the control of the Islamicists, and Ethiopia is a Christian nation. The conflict was inevitable as Somalia isn't one to back down against a nation they have deemed to be an enemy.

Furthermore, the past few weeks, we have tracked a number of foreign fighters flooding into Somalia preparing for this war. This is definitely a conflict we're going to have to watch, and it's going to be anything but short. So chalk this up as the first major news story to be followed of the new year.

Publius II

UPDATE: I found the link to the story above. Here it is.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Leash For Al-Sadr, Iraq Gov't Tells US tTo Crack Down On Sunnis

Posted by on Sunday, December 24, 2006 12:05:55 PM
 Color me disappointed:

(HT: Allahpundit)

One of Iraq's most influential Shiite clerics rejected a U.S.-backed proposal to isolate Shiite extremists in the national government, saying the country should govern itself with the help of anti-U.S. firebrand Muqtada Sadr, according to politicians who spoke with the cleric Saturday.

Shiite politicians met with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in this Shiite holy city, and then said they had thrown their support behind Sadr, who demands a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq rather than the temporary increase under consideration in Washington.

"The Sadr movement is part of Iraqi affairs," said Haider Abadi, a leader of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party. "We won't allow others to interfere to weaken any Iraqi political movement."

Doesn't that just warm the sub-cockles of your heart? These people actually think that al-Sadr is being political. And all this time I just thought he wanted to get rid of the Sunnis. Oh, that's right; that's exactly what they want us to help them do:

Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has created a two-pronged security plan for Baghdad in which U.S. forces would aggressively target Sunni Arab insurgents instead of Shiite militias. At the same time, Maliki would intensify his efforts to weaken Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and contain his Mahdi Army militia, Iraqi officials said Tuesday.

Under these conditions, Maliki would accept a surge in U.S. troops in Baghdad, according to two Maliki advisers with knowledge of the plan. Maliki plans to discuss his proposal with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and senior U.S. commanders during a meeting in Baghdad on Thursday, the officials said. The Bush administration is contemplating a temporary increase in troops to help stem the highest levels of violence since 2003.

The plan calls for U.S. troops to combat Sunni Arab insurgents for four to eight weeks in outer Baghdad neighborhoods, which Maliki believes are the source of the sectarian violence afflicting the capital, his aides said. Iraqi forces would take over primary responsibility for patrolling inner Baghdad from U.S. forces.

During this period, Maliki would persuade Sadr to stop the Mahdi Army from fomenting violence, using a combination of carrots and sticks, including the threat of force, said the advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters. If the Mahdi Army does not stop its assaults, Maliki, with the help of U.S. troops, would crack down on Sadr.

Hi, I'm Earth. Have we met? Al-Sadr may hate his Sunni "country cousins," but he hates us, too. And he's going to continue coming after our guys. If I were Pres. Bush, and Gen. Abizaid, I'd tell al-Maliki that if he doesn't keep his dogs on a leash, there going to get smoked. This idea that the Mahdi Army can't be targeted by our troops, or they are somehow shielded by al-Maliki is malarkey. If we're fired on by them, or attacked by them, all bets are off. Oh, and those Sunnis in Baghdad that al-Maliki seems worried about? Yeah, can you say "ethinic cleansing?" I knew you could:

As the United States debates what to do in Iraq, this country's Shiite majority is already moving toward its own solution.

In a broad power grab in Baghdad Shiite militias are pushing Sunnis out, forcing them to flee to an increasingly embattled territory in the western part of the city. At least 10 mixed neighborhoods have become almost entirely Shiite this year, say residents, local officials and U.S. and Iraqi military commanders.

It is a fight for control of Baghdad that Sunni militants were once winning. For the first two years of the war, they forced Shiites out of neighborhoods across the city, systematically killing bakers, barbers and trash collectors, jobs often held by Shiites. But in February, after the bombing of the Samarra mosque, Shiite militias struck back, pushing west from eastern strongholds and redrawing the sectarian map of the capital.

Shiites are seizing power broadly. The Shiite-dominated government is demanding more control over the Iraqi security forces, but militias have settled deeply within their ranks and the Sunni public is terrified at the prospect.

Please go read the story cited above. It'll kill you to see what the Shi'ites are forcing on the Sunnis. Mark my words--This is slowly spiralling out of control. IF this leads to a downturn in the violence, and IF the country begins to stabilize, we're going to start our withdrawal. Everything will look failr hunky-dory for us while we do this, and when we're gone two things will probably happen. First, the Sunnis are going to face the worst Hell of their lives because the Shi'ites are going to cut loose on the Sunnis. It'll be Saddam and the Kurds all over again. Second, as along as al-Maliki is cozy-cozy with al-Sadr, Iran's waiting to come a-knockin'.

The president has made a critical error in Iraq in trusting al-Maliki to hold the government together. He'll do it, alright, and completely at the expense of the Sunnis. This deal struck with al-Sadr stinks to high Heaven, and I expected a bit more common sense coming out of those over there who went to appeal to him and al-Maliki for an end to the violence. I guess I gave them too much credit. And, Allah takes note of an e-mailer who points out this from Andy McCarthy:

... Now, to be sure, I think this was a blunder. To me, Maliki is a Dawa apparatchik Islamic fundamentalist. The organization of which he was a high-ranking officer bombed an American embassy (in Kuwait) in 1983. Even though he was an implacable foe of Saddam's regime, he opposed the U.S. invasion in March 2003. He supports Hezbollah. He favors closer Iraqi ties with Iran and Syria. His alliance with Sadr is not an accident. And, for all the blather about how he is reluctantly deferential to Sadr, I actually think it's Maliki who is using Sadr, not the other way around.

Maliki's Dawa party is more adept and just as anti-American as Sadr, but because of Sadr's blatant opposition to us, Americans have not focused on the history and creed of the Dawa party — indeed, most Americans don't even realize that there is a Dawa (the "call to Allah") party, or an Iranian supported party called SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq). Americans have been focused on Sadr and his Mahdi army. Meantime, Sadr is not even the most important Shiite opposition to the U.S. in Iraq, much less the whole problem.

I can't find any fault in Andy's logic, and I kick myself for not seeing al-Maliki's moves earlier. With all of his overtures about wanting a unified, stable Iraq, he picked up on Pres. Bush's talking points, fed them back, and the president trusts him for it. The problem arises when we don't pay attention to the details, and look only at what is on the facade. Additionally, Andy goes on to say that it's time for a return to the Bush Doctrine:

All that aside, though, the Bush administration has placed great and explicit stock in establishing a stable, popularly elected (which it translates as "democratic") Iraqi government. It has made an enormous deal out of the popular elections and the constitutional referendum. It has been so seduced by the images of Iraqi Muslims courageously going to the polls that the zillion reasons to worry about what these Iraqi Muslims were actually voting for have been ignored. There has been no concern about Iraq's commitment to remaining culturally Islamic (the Bush administration, for all its talk about this being an ideological war, has steered carefully clear of any consideration of Islamic ideology). Thus, there has been no inquiry about whether a government led by Maliki and Dawa would ever be pro-American ... notwithstanding that Americans care a lot more about whether the Iraqi government we birth is pro-American than whether it is "democratically" legitimate.

As we pursue our actual national security interests in Iraq, I continue to believe we should execute the Bush Doctrine — i.e., defeat al Qaeda and work to depose terror sponsors like Iran — even though the Iraqi government is certain to oppose many of the things we must do to accomplish those ends. But I do not mean to minimize how much our credibility could/would be harmed by ignoring and, at least occasionally, reducing to irrelevance the Iraqi government we have placed so much stock in. Rich raises very real concerns in this regard, and I don't mean to minimize the blow to our credibility that my position necessarily entails. I happen to think other interests outweigh that regrettable development, but I don't mean to suggest that it is an unimportant concern.

It's time we do make that return. Our war is on the "terror masters," as Michael Ledeen calls them, and being there in Iraq playing nation building right now isn't the overall answer. In war, the enemy is destroyed before we start building things back. Until then, a military governor--much like MacArthur was to Japan after World War II--would be a better idea until we had run down the last of these animals. By staying in Iraq right now, and playing by their rules, things will get much worse before it gets better, and now I'm afraid of the blood we might have on our hands when this is all said and done.

If I were Pres. Bush, I'd simply tell al-Maliki that we need the increase in troops to finish this up, and that we're going after the targets he chooses. We're going after the targets that are threatening the civilian populace, and those that act and operate as terrorists--be it Sunnis, or al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pajamas Media Releases The NARA Report On The Berger Investigation

Posted by on Friday, December 22, 2006 3:35:46 PM
 
Sandy Berger's activities in the National Archives was suspicious, according to the official report obtained and released by Pajamas Media. The report itself is heavily redacted for security matters, and the call has gone out again from PJM for help in analyzing it. They are looking for knowledgable people to help them with this task. No, I'm not making myself out to be more than I am, but I did notice something about the report which struck me as odd.

The biggest question that has been asked is what did he take from the Archives? It's stated in the report that there were four documents taken. And when those at the archives became suspicious, they took steps to monitor what was taken. On the back of eacdh sheet he requested, they wrote down a number, and recorded what that numbered documents contents were. Once he left, they went through the files he had requested, and noted which ones were missing.

Now, according to the requests to review these documents, Berger was supposedly reviewing these documents to prepare for testimony before the Goss/Graham Congressional Commission, and the 9/11 Commission. It's not unusual for those having to give such testimony to review the past, which is apparently what Berger was doing. However, according to the report, the documents that were seized dealt directly with the Millenium Alert After Action Review. This would be the report that was filed after the Millenium bomb plot was foiled. We'll recall that Ahmed Ressam was trhe bomber caught by customs officials on 14 December 1999.

But the question remains as to why these four documents connected to a crime that had nothing to do with 11 September. Ressam, after his conviction, admitted that he knew none of the 19 hijackers when investigators confronted him with their pictures. He had never met them, did not know them, but could confirm there were al Qaeda sleeper cells in America.

After going back over the Millenium bomb plot information, the only connection I can find is that supposedly Ressam knew of, and had met with Abu Zubayda. Zubayda was supposedly one of bin Laden's chief deputies. However, some investigators have a problem believing Zubayda's claim to being so close to bin Laden. He is prone to great exaggerations of his relationship with him, and other al Qaeda members. We do know he was one of the senior al Qaeda leaders captured late this year.

But I still go back to asking why did Berger take the documents concerning the Millenium plot? It was, after all, only a policy document. I could see him taking documents with a bit more incriminating facets of the Clinton White House's inability to deal with al Qaeda. The Millenium plot was foiled successfully, despite being an accident. Customs officials were tipped off by Ressam's behavior at the border, and initially believed he was smuggling drugs into the US when they discovered the bomb components in his trunk. Only after a careful inspection of the device did they realize what they had found.

The MAAR report was not the most sensitive document that Berger reviewed. In fact it had been distributed to a number of agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and Department of State. On top of that, the MAAR was designed to show what the Clinton white House went through to "plug holes" in our national security, which the Millenium plot had shown us we had. Unfortunately, those holes weren't plugged completely, as 11 September showed us just two short years later.

Only Sandy Berger can answer the question of why he took the MAAR. And he's not speaking up. to that end, we are left with specualtion. Hopefully, the call put out by PJM will be answered, and we can finally get some answers to the questions surrounding this incident.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe Wilson Asks Not To Testify In Libby Case

Posted by on Thursday, December 21, 2006 4:22:27 PM
 I spotted this story on Hot Air last night, but all they had was a video clip. Today, the WaPo has it. Joe Wilson is requesting that he not be compelled to testify in the Scooter Libby case:

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson asked a federal judge Wednesday not to force him to testify in the CIA leak case and accused former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to harass him on the witness stand.

Libby, who faces perjury and obstruction charges, subpoenaed Wilson as a defense witness this month. Libby's attorney, William Jeffress, said in court Tuesday that was a precautionary move and he did not expect to put Wilson on the stand.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Wilson's wife, outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame and Wilson have sued Libby and other Bush administration officials, accusing them of plotting to leak Plame's identity as retribution for Wilson's criticism of prewar intelligence on Iraq.

"Mr. Libby should not be permitted to compel Mr. Wilson's testimony at trial either for the purpose of harassing Mr. Wilson or to gain an advantage in the civil case," Wilson's attorneys wrote.

While Wilson and Plame are at the center of the CIA leak scandal, Wilson is a minor figure in Libby's perjury trial. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has sought to keep much of the back story of the leak out of the case.

Technically, based on the judge's idea, Wilson's testimony is irrelevant. Scoort Libby is charged with perjury, not revealing a covert (which she wasn't) agent's identity. He really has nothing to do with the case. If Libby had been charged with revealing a covert (which she wasn't) agent's identity, then Wilson would definitely be involved.

The part where that comes into contention in this case is whether or not Valerie Plame's identity was known by the general public. It's been alleged by several people that Valerie Plames identity was known by friends; that is, they knew she worked for the CIA. Whether they knew her status there or not remains in contention. But as this does revolve around her, his testimony should be compelled, albeit in a very limited role.

and for those who wish to take issue with me regarding her covert status, be my guest. Her NOC status had expired by the time Robert Novak first mentions her in his column. He has stated, on the record, that he had purposefully waited for that status to expire so they he wasn't revelaing a covert agent. At the time her identity was revealed to the average Joe Six-Pack, she wasn't covert any longer. Even if identified as a former covert agent of the CIA, her safety wasn't in jeopardy for the simple fact that anything she might know would be useless to someone wanting to exploit it.

Security at Langley isn't like airport security here. She couldn't just stroll back int he door with a "friend" and be granted access to the sensitive materials she had worked on. Likewise, with the numerous electronic security measures in the headquarters, it's doubtful that anyone could get access to classified materials without the proper codes and IDs. As she is no longer employed by the CIA, any IDs she might still have would be null and void. And Wilson doesn't have access to the CIA, so I fail to see the "safety" argument Joe Wilson has stood by.

I honestly think that this fiasco has run it's course a few times over. And I think this request is simple grandstanding. I could care less if the guy is compelled to testify or not. I have faith that Scooter Libby will be found not guilty of perjury. I can buy his stance that it was a n inadvertent mistake more than I can buy the Sandy Berger excuse of accidently taking classified documents from the National Archives.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CIA Assessment: We Lose This War And We're In Deep Kimshi

Posted by on Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:56:07 PM
 I picked this up from the Washington Times this morning. Now, I know a lot of people don't have faith in the CIA. They've been vilified, mocked, and generally kicked around. I'm betting that a lot of those detractors know little, if anything, abnout how intelligence work is conducted, and how invaluable such work is to the nation. The CIA has just finished running an assessment of what would happen if we fail in this war. Hold all your "pointer-out-of-the-obvious" jokes:

The CIA this month conducted a simulation of how the Iraq war affects the global jihadist movement, and one conclusion was that a U.S. loss would embolden al Qaeda to expand its ranks of terrorists as well as pick new strategic targets, according to sources familiar with the two-day exercise.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield confirmed to The Washington Times yesterday that the simulation took place in Northern Virginia. He declined to discuss its findings, saying that a final report is not finished and that the report will not be the intelligence community's official view. It will, however, be circulated within the community and possibly to U.S. policy-makers.

The exercise involved 75 CIA analysts and outside specialists. It was conducted by the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis, within the agency's Counterterrorism Center.

A source familiar with the simulation said it was a "red team" exercise in which participants played the role of global jihadists and war-gamed how the U.S. involvement in Iraq will influence their terror movement.

Although it takes no policy positions, the simulation's key finding appears to bolster Mr. Bush's contention that a U.S. loss in Iraq will have far-reaching ramifications.

At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bush said, "A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States. Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks."

Al Qaeda has made stopping democracy in Iraq a top priority, according to U.S. military officials. It has recruited hundreds of suicide bombers to come to Iraq and inflict mass casualties to spur a Sunni-Shi'ite Muslim civil war. The group wants to wear down U.S. troops to the point where they will retreat. Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to turn Iraq and other Middle East countries into hard-line Islamic states, U.S. military officials say.

One key finding from the "red team" exercise is that al Qaeda will follow past practices. Jihadists perceived the victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1988 as a seminal event that spawned the creation of al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda leaders thought that if jihadists could defeat a global power in one theater, it could bring down governments in other nations.

Six years later, when U.S. troops left Somalia after taking casualties at the hands of al Qaeda-trained Muslim fighters, it reaffirmed its feeling of invincibility and its belief that Western powers have a low threshold for casualties. After Somalia, al Qaeda -- and like-minded jihadists -- began attacking U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf region and ultimately struck America on September 11, 2001.

The CIA-sponsored simulation predicts that al Qaeda will view a U.S. defeat in Iraq as another jihadist victory over a superpower and one that will bring it even more terrorist recruits.

"When we did the simulation, the ramifications were enormous," said the source, who asked not to be named. The source said al Qaeda will proclaim, "God has given us a second victory over a superpower.

"Imagine what defeat in Iraq would do," said the source. "Al Qaeda picks new targets after it thinks it's won."

It's important to note the two paragraphs that are bolded above. If anyone has read Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower then you know that the analysis is dead on. It details Osama's drive to rid the Middle East of the infidel Western influence., and return them to the "Islamic paradise" that he envisioned.

We were driven from Somalia, and our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania became targets. The USS cole became a target. And utlimately, the World Trade Center towers were brought down. RETREAT urges the Islamicists to hit us again. They won't back down once they have a victory under their belt. After the Soviet departure from Afghanistan in the late eighties, Osama returned to Saudi Arabia, and was bankrolled by elements of the royal family, including Prince Turki,/li> who was in charge of Saudi Arabi's intelligence service. Eventually, there was a falling out, but up to that point, the two enjoyed a solid working relationship, despite disagreements over tactics and strategies.

Assessments like this are commonplace in the government, and it doesn't just encompass those who work for our intelligence services. They go to outside experts, former intelligence officers, etc. to get a working viewpoint of what things are like. And they're assessment, while obvious, is still one that should be noted by those concerned with this war. On one side, we have the Neville Chamberlain Memorial Commission and the extreme nutters of the Democrat party calling for withdrawal. On the other hand are people who understand that a removal of troops means that our enemy is going to dig in, and come at us even harder than before.

What's worse is that we have intelligence showing that al-Qaeda is working with other groups in Iraq. Among them are al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which is being trained and equipped by Iran and Hezbollah. People keep saying that the Shi'a extremists and Sunni al-Qaeda will never work together. But this isn't a direct union of Iran with al-Qaeda. These are battlefield alliances; ones that are just as easily broken as they are made. And as long as such alliances continue in Iraq, we have problems. In addition to that, we have the problem of Somalia, again. Since the Islamicists took over there, al-Qaeda fighters have been migrating there to reinforce the Islamic hold over the country. Should al-Qaeda realize that they're beaten in Iraq, they have a new sanctuary to hide in.

Our enemies are relentless. Retreat from Iraq means a retreat fromt he overall war, and that spells disaster for the nation. It's a mistake we can't afford to make, so it's time for the US to dig in now. We don't give them an inch. Our soldiers are told to destroy the enemy, not take the PC approach to combat. Casualties, including civilians, are deplorable, but they are a cause of war. We can do our best to avoid such mistakes, but we can't be perfect. Not when our soldier's lives are on the line, and our future is, as well. And personally speaking, I'd give this report more credence than the ISG report. THIS is the report I hope the president pays the most attention to.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…678910111213141516Next »