Smoke rises near the Iraqi Ministry of Justice, shortly after a blast, in Baghdad October 25, 2009. Twin car bombs targeting two government buildings killed at least 75 people and wounded 460 in central Baghdad on Sunday, police and health officials said, in the bloodiest attack in the capital for two months.
REUTERS/Stringer

While Sunday’s 2 bus bombs in Baghdad that left over a hundred dead and 500 wounded was a horrific reminder that “evil-doers” and “deadenders” still seek to derail the road to freedom and democracy for Iraq, ordinary Iraqis, who have endured so much, seem undaunted and optimistic about their future.

David Ignatius of WaPo apparently was flying overhead in a Black Hawk with General David Petraeus on the day of the bombings. Baghdad was so much abuzz with construction and commerce activities, that they did not realize that terrorists exploded two massive car bombs at the Justice Ministry and the Baghdad provincial administration. This is how he describes the reaction of his Iraqi friends, and it is the correct message to send to terrorists (you know? “Go shopping“?):

But my Iraqi friends were surprisingly upbeat about the future, even after Sunday’s terrible bombings. “In every sector, Iraq is coming back to its normal mode,” said one. “There is no way it will slip back,” insisted the other. I wondered at their confidence on such a day, but that is part of the Iraqi toughness.

Rather than talking about the bombings, we talked politics. My friends sharply criticized the incumbent prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. But as we were debating, one turned to me with a smile: “Here we are talking about who will run the government after the elections. Could you do that in any other country in the Arab world?”

As night fell, Petraeus and his party flew to Camp Victory, near the airport. “Baghdad can be a cruel place,” he told me. “You have to keep a grip on your hopes.” But as the Black Hawk skimmed over the city, Baghdad seemed to be teeming again, despite the morning’s events.

Petraeus surveyed the cityscape at night. “People are back out in the parks,” he said. “All the lights are on, cars are driving around.” I asked later if he thought Sunday’s violence would lead people to request that American troops return to the cities, and he shook his head: “Iraq is a sovereign country. Iraqis will respond to this.”

…..standing up….

1. If all the world hated America because of George W Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq….then why was America attacked on Sept 11, 2001; 2yrs before that invasion?
2. Why has Al Queda been trying to exterminate every American for the past 17yrs?
3. Did you want Bush to fail in Iraq, or did you want America to succeed?
4. Given that Osama left Afghanistan in 2001, and Al Queda was largely destroyed in Afghanistan in 2002, how did the Bush Administration “take its eye off the ball [Afghanistan] by invading Iraq” in 2003?
5. What caused the great recession of 2007?
6. How have Democrats ensured that we don’t have another $13 TRILLION dollar Great Recession?
7. If FOX, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc are examples of right wing propaganda…then what is an example of left wing propaganda?
8. If Republicans lie, and all politicians are liars, then what are some lies told by Democrats?
9. Since President Obama’s Israel/Palestine talks have failed, and he’s been unable to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and since he’s completely clueless on what to do in Afghanistan…what is PLAN B for keeping Israel from bombing Iran and starting a regional-possibly a world war?
10. Obama’s a quarter of the way done with his presidency. What will history record as his greatest accomplishment?

btw, I could come up with more, but these were my top 10. Anyone who thinks they have one that deserves being on the list, please, please, please feel free to suggest it. I probably won’t add it out of sheer laziness, but I think we’d all love to see em.

A family photo that shows a little girl beside her father and his fellow soldiers in uniform as they prepare to go to war has resonated well beyond the tight knit Bennethum clan.

Four-year-old Paige Bennethum really, really didn’t want her daddy to go to Iraq.

So much so, that when Army Reservist Staff Sgt. Brett Bennethum lined up in formation at his deployment this July, she couldn’t let go.

No one had the heart to pull her away.

Read more (video included) at A Soldier’s Perspective

I am 10 minutes late rushing off to work, but please check this out, regarding the soldiers at the two combat outposts that were overrun. They apparently lost everything except the clothes on their backs.

The anti-war zombies paraded themselves Monday in front of the White House. If these so-called “peace” activists want to “stop war against the people of Afghanistan”, then why do they so strongly advocate troop withdrawal? How does that help bring peace and end war in Afghanistan?

Medea Benjamin:

This is marking yet another anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan; and we’re here to say that we voted for this president because we want an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re actually talking about sending in another 40,000 troops and we’re saying that’s insane. So we’re here to say healthcare not warfare. We need this money at home for education, healthcare, infrastructure, fixing our country; and, we should put money into Afghanistan for the needs of the people and not more warfare.

Yes, because all we and our NATO allies are engaged in over there, is “going into the homes of Afghans in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs.”. For example:

Belgian army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) distribute greeting cards for the Eid-al-Fitr festival as they patrol during a joint mission with German Bundeswehr army soldiers in Taloqan, west of Kunduz, September 30, 2008.
REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

U.S. Navy Seabees and Army soldiers work on a construction project in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Sept. 25, 2009. The Seabees are assigned to the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 22, and the soldiers are assigned to 4th Engineer Battalion.
U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Kenneth W. Robinson

A grateful refugee camp resident in Kabul, Afghanistan, kisses U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. (Dr.) Yevsey Goldberg, who helped bring more than 550-kilograms of rice and other supplies, Dec. 6, 2008. Goldberg is deployed to International Security Assistance Force Headquarters.
U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Aramis Ramirez

U.S. Navy Lt. Obi Ugochukwu checks sick baby Fatima, 8 months, on March 23, 2009 outside the U.S. Marine base in Bakwa in southwest Afghanistan. The child’s parents brought her to the base for emergency treatment for a 104 degree fever and seizures. Ugochukwu, the base medical officer, gave the child medicine to reduce the fever and asked the parents to bring her again the following day. Such remote areas as Bakwa, in Afghanistan’s Farah province, have no hospitals, and the medical personnel at the Marine base provide the only emergency care in the region. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

A Canadian soldier shakes hands with an Afghan boy during a joint patrol with Afghan National Army troops near Panjwaii village, Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan, July 13, 2007.
REUTERS/Finbarr O’Reilly

A U.S. soldier passes out candy to children in Pir Zadeh, a village in Afghanistan. Military commanders and architects of the Human Terrain project say that it helps make soldiers more knowledgeable about the society surrounding them, thus minimizing casualties and civilian deaths.
Vanessa M. Gezari

[This post to be updated with more photos of U.S. and NATO troops "terrorizing" the Afghan people]

The Afghan people are not the Taliban. After their war with the Soviets, we made the mistake of leaving a power vacuum in the country. The Taliban brought stability to the region; but along with that, they brought their madrasas and a strict adherence and indoctrination into Islamic fundamentalism; and with that came cruelty and oppression.

War-weary Afghans welcomed the stability, but not the governance under Sharia. By October 7, 2001, the people of Afghanistan welcomed liberation.

There are many complex issues in dealing with Afghanistan; there are no painless downhill solutions, but only steep mountains to climb.

But in regards to Code Pink and the anti-war movement, where does their compassion lay? Do they really care about the lives of innocent Afghans? Then why would they advocate a course of action that would subjugate the people of Afghanistan to once again live under the brutality of Taliban rule?

Certainly, not all Afghans have appreciated our presence there; and hold us accountable for some of the violence. But others recognize that we are the ones trying to protect them and to help them rebuild a stable government.

The failures of the Karzai government and the allegations of election fraud- both real and perceived- have been a huge setback, doing more damage than any Taliban attack.

The perception of wavering commitment back in Washington does nothing to further confidence among the Afghan people that the U.S. and NATO are the answer to their prayers of a better life and brighter future:

Governor Massoud said he personally admired the Marines here, from the Second Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, but he said many people “just don’t want them here.”

He estimated that two of every three local residents supported the Taliban, mostly because they make a living growing poppy for the drug trade, which the Taliban control. Others support them for religious reasons or because they object to foreign forces.

Not least, people understand that the Taliban have not disappeared, but simply fallen back to Garmsir, 40 miles north, and will almost surely try to return.

Lt. Col. Tim Grattan, the battalion commander, said the local residents’ ambivalence reflected fears of what could happen to anyone who sided with the Marines, an apprehension stoked by past operations that sent troops in only for short periods.

“They are on the fence,” Colonel Grattan said. “They want to go with a winner. They want to see if we stay around and will be able to protect them from the Taliban and any repercussions.”

From Oliver North’s American Heroes, pg 263-4:

10 December 2007- MADERIYA, Iraq, We walked through this agricultural community east of Baghdad, not far from the Iranian border, with COL. Terry Ferrell, commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID. He introduced me to CPT Fawaz Nazzir, of the Iraqi Army. I asked why he joined the new Iraqi Army eleven months ago. His reply was a testament to American resolve in prosecuting this campaign: “I waited,” replied CPT Nazzir, “to see which side was going to win.”

To some Americans that may sound like a cynical response but not to those who have spent years campaigning in Mesopotamia. “What would you expect given how uncertain our commitment was at home?” commented one U.S. officer on his third tour of duty here. He continued: “Until ‘the surge’, nobody in Iraq knew whether we were going to finish this fight. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] and the Shiite militias were all telling their followers that we were going to cut and run. ‘The surge’ proved that we weren’t going to abandon them.”

Not only did we not abandon them, we upped the ante, increasing the number of U.S. combat units in the country and significantly expanding training and support for Iraq’s fledgling security forces.

As with the Iraqis, Afghans want to know that they are siding with the winners; because they know, should they side with the U.S., and we pull out and abandon them, they will suffer barbaric retribution at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

We have a home to retreat back to. For them, Afghanistan is their home. And should the Taliban return, they will have nowhere to run.

American allies throughout the world will also have doubts as to whether or not America is a reliable partner when the going gets tough:

In an interview at the Journal’s offices this week in New York, Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi minced no words about the impact of a U.S. withdrawal before the Taliban is defeated. “This will be disastrous,” he said. “You will lose credibility. . . . Who is going to trust you again?” As for Washington’s latest public bout of ambivalence about the war, he added that “the fact that this is being debated—whether to stay or not stay—what sort of signal is that sending?”

Mr. Qureshi also sounded incredulous that the U.S. might walk away from a struggle in which it has already invested so much: “If you go in, why are you going out without getting the job done? Why did you send so many billion of dollars and lose so many lives? And why did we ally with you?” All fair questions, and all so far unanswered by the Obama Administration.

As for the consequences to Pakistan of an American withdrawal, the foreign minister noted that “we will be the immediate effectees of your policy.” Among the effects he predicts are “more misery,” “more suicide bombings,” and a dramatic loss of confidence in the economy, presumably as investors fear that an emboldened Taliban, no longer pressed by coalition forces in Afghanistan, would soon turn its sights again on Islamabad.

Mr. Qureshi’s arguments carry all the more weight now that Pakistan’s army is waging an often bloody struggle to clear areas previously held by the Taliban and their allies. Pakistan has also furnished much of the crucial intelligence needed to kill top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in U.S. drone strikes. But that kind of cooperation will be harder to come by if the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and Islamabad feels obliged to protect itself in the near term by striking deals with various jihadist groups, as it has in the past.

Pakistanis have long viewed the U.S. through the lens of a relationship that has oscillated between periods of close cooperation—as during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s—and periods of tension and even sanctions—as after Pakistan’s test of a nuclear device in 1998. Pakistan’s democratic government has taken major risks to increase its assistance to the U.S. against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Mr. Qureshi is warning, in so many words, that a U.S. retreat from Afghanistan would make it far more difficult for Pakistan to help against al Qaeda.

Media reports, such as the recent news coverage of “Wanat II” that left 8 U.S. soldiers dead, can affect public opinion and Taliban morale, creating an Afghan Tet. Much of the war is about the propaganda of perspective and perception:

A battle that killed eight Americans at a pair of remote military bases in Afghanistan last weekend also left more than 100 insurgents dead, NATO said in a statement released on Tuesday.

Are we winning or losing?

Sending reinforcements will send a clear message to the Taliban and the world that the reputation of Afghanistan as being the “graveyard of empires” is nothing more than a myth; and that the U.S. did what Alexander the Great, the British, and the Soviets could not do.

No, it won’t be easy. The problems faced are complex, and may take generations to solve. But the process needs to start here. 8 years is a drop in the bucket in the context of history. It is nothing.

And in the process of showing resolve and intestinal fortitude to outlast the will of the enemy, we will have helped accomplish what Code Pink and the anti-war movement have never done: bring about peace and a push toward the promotion of human rights.

A U.S. Marine from Charlie 1/1 of the 15th MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) carries empty sand bags to a mortar position in southern Afghanistan, December 1, 2001.
REUTERS/File

It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.

Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding.

Opponents of President Bush and of the invasion of Iraq often claim, “Iraq did not attack the United States on Sept 11, 2001,” but Germany, Italy, and the rest of the Axis didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either and yet the U.S. went to war with them as well as the Japanese. Why? Because those Axis powers had an alliance, an agreement to help the Japanese. It was a paper only agreement (history shows us that there were no battles with uber-racist NAZI S.S. troops fighting alongside Japanese troops), but it was an agreement none-the-less. Additionally, the Axis nations declared war on the United States after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Similarly, we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

Why?

Why did Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda go to war with the United States in 1992? According to the 911 Commission’s final report, the reason that the Al Queda network went to war with the United States, and ultimately the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks was 4 different things (pg48-49)

He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.
He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Why were American forces in Saudi Arabia from 1992-2001? They were there for one reason: to enforce no-fly-zones over Iraq which were there to protect Iraqis from Saddam. If the United States had removed Saddam in 1991, then the U.S. forces wouldn’t have been needed in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden’s first casus belli wouldn’t exist.

Why was Osama concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people? He was concerned-like many around the globe-because the U.S. led sanctions were starving tens of millions of people as a failed means of influencing Saddam. Again, had the United States removed Saddam in 1991, Osama Bin Laden’s second casus belli against the United States-his second reason for the 911 attacks-wouldn’t have existed.

Why was Osama Bin Laden so concerned about the United States support for Israel in the 1992-2001 period when Al Queda went to war with the United States? What was unique about that period in America’s support for Israel? In much of the Arab World (and in anti-Semitic circles around the world as well), America’s continued pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime was viewed as an American shield for Israel; as the United States protecting Israel from Saddam and other aggressive Arab regimes.

The historical lesson and inescapable fact is that if the United States had chosen to remove Saddam from power in 1991, OR if the United States had simply walked away from Iraq in 1991 and washed their hands of Saddam’s regime without trying to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions, then Saddam’s regime would have remained in power, BUT the reasons for Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda terrorist networks’ war on the United States simply would not exist; i.e. the reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks wouldn’t have existed.

Would Osama Bin Laden and his network still have found other reasons to wage war on the United States? One cannot tell for certain, but it does seem that their nature and their destiny has been to fight superpowers, and with the United States as the sole superpower in the 1990’s, it seems more than likely other excuses for casus belli would have been claimed.

Would Saddam Hussein have still been a threat to the United States if he had been left in power in 1991, and if the United States didn’t pursue compliance with U.N. Resolutions? Absolutely. In 1992 U.N. inspectors found that Saddam’s regime had actually built a nuclear bomb, but lacked enriched uranium for it. From 1992-1995 U.N. inspectors found vast amounts of WMD. Saddam had invaded or attacked every single one of his neighbors during his reign, he’d used WMD in the past, had ordered them used against U.S. troops in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq Survey Group Report, transcript of recording, vol II). Few reasonable leaders would argue that Saddam was not a threat, and no one would argue that a Saddam Hussein who still had ballistic missiles, WMD, and more in 1992 was not a regional or even global threat. Determined that he was a threat, Saddam either had to be removed in 1991 by the United States, in the 1991-2003 period by internal forces (multiple attempts at which all failed with increasing futlity), or by the United States in 2003.

The abstract, and more indirect relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is simple: the war with Al Queda and their attacks on the United States (including the 911 attacks) were blowback, consequences, fragmentary effects of the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

The DIRECT relationship between the 911 attacks and Saddam’s regime is far more debated. To be clear, the hijackers were no more Iraqi than the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were German and Italian. However, the question of direct Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks go back to that very day when-as the attacks were happening-Iraq shot down an unarmed Predator drone over Iraq that was searching for WMD etc. On that day, after getting sparse, scattered, and chaotic information about the attacks-while they were happening, and while getting 2-3x as many false reports and rumors of attacks, members of the Bush Administration were not at all culpable or irresponsible for asking if Saddam’s regime was behind the attacks.

In fact, at the time it had become a common cultural expectation. During the 1990’s the Clinton Administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network worked together. Mass media reports of the time carried this theme fully and without question. It was even showing up in movies where characters would claim anything-even meteor showers on New York City were the result of Saddam (Armaggeddon ffwd to 1:40).

Unfortunately, on Sept 11, 2001 there was no way to tell if the attacks were directly or just indirectly related to the on-going American war against Saddam (a war that was so poorly reported that most Americans even today fail to realize it even happened, but conversely was so burned into the minds of the Arab Street at the time that it still conjures up bitter memories in the region).

The question of direct Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks was investigated first by the Bush Administration, and they found no evidence to make a conclusion. Subsequent investigations by the CIA, FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the entire intelligence community, the 911 Commission and more all ran into the same problem: there was no evidence. For political partisans opposed to President Bush and/or the invasion of Iraq that was enough to support their argument that the invasion was somehow not necessary. The conclusion they promoted-that there was “no evidence” of a direct involvement was but 1/3 of the truth. Another 1/3 was the reason that there was “no evidence’ was because almost none had been collected or analyzed, and the reason for that (almost always ignored by political opponents of the Iraq invasion) was that from December 1998-December 2002 the United States had not a single spy inside Iraq. For four years there was no evidence collected, and thus there was “no evidence.”

Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.
- Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report
Press Conference transcript

The last 1/3 is the most obvious, and the most deliberately ignored for political purposes: every single investigation that looked at the question of direct regime ties to the 911 attacks and/or the Al Queda network of terrorist groups ALWAYS pointed out that because so little evidence had been collected, the issue was to remain open-not closed or concluded.

After the invasion, innumerable direct ties between the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime have been uncovered. These ties are shown in captured and authenticated documents, in the interrogation of former regime leaders, and in the capture of Al Queda operatives. In fact, the relationship between the regime and the network was far far more involved than any relationship between Germany and Japan or Mussolini and Tojo.

Yet it remains a political issue more than a historical one today. six years after the second invasion of Iraq, eight years after the 911 attacks, 17 years after Osama and the Al Queda network declared war on the United States, and 18 years after the United States and Saddam’s regime went to war over Kuwait.

Perhaps, now that President Bush is gone, and there is no more need to use the invasion of Iraq as a draw issue for his opposition…perhaps now people can be mentally brave enough to recognize the undeniable blowback/more-indirect relationship between the Ignored War on Saddam’s regime (1991-2001) and the 911 attacks. There certainly is no more reason to deny this fact, and there’s no more reason to avoid a conclusive investigation into the depth of regime ties to the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

There are no words. Wow, amazing, these kinda things just don’t say it.

Thank you both. That’s all I can say-that, and CONGRATULATIONS!

Only foreign policy offered a bright spot: 52 percent of poll respondents approved of his job on this front, compared with 38 percent who disapproved.

Proof yet again that opposition to President Bush’s policies was just opposition to Bush.

LONDON (Reuters) – Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will be asked to testify to a panel investigating the Iraq war, the head of the inquiry said Thursday.

Former civil servant John Chilcot said the inquiry, set up by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, would look at British involvement in the war, covering the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July this year.

“The people we invite to give evidence will be those we judge … are best placed to supply the information we need to conduct our task thoroughly,” the inquiry chairman told a news conference.

“That will, of course, include the former prime minister and other senior figures involved in decision taking,” he added.

Blair’s decision to send 45,000 troops to join the U.S.-led invasion to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein six years ago provoked massive anti-war protests in London and the resignations of ministers.

No Truth Commissions here in the US (though if Obama’s poll numbers take another hit, and Healthcare fails…it’s a good bet there’ll be more dancing & calling for one from the distraction driven Dems.

Call me Tony. I’m happy to help w the timeline & pics

Introduction excerpt from Michael Totten’s The Future of Iraq Pt. IV:

Getting an accurate reading of Iraqi public opinion is hard. It might be impossible. I’ve seen Iraqis cheer American soldiers, and I’ve seen some Iraqis hug American soldiers in Fallujah, Ramadi, and Baghdad. A few weeks ago, though, hundreds of thousands celebrated when Americans evacuated Iraqi cities as stipulated by the Status of Forces Agreement.

It’s theoretically possible that what we’ve seen is not contradictory. Some Iraqis are pro-American. Others are not. Those who celebrated when Americans left may very well be, at least for the most part, different Iraqis than those I’ve seen who greeted Americans warmly.

Iraqi public opinion, though, is famously contradictory. And Iraqi public opinion as stated by Iraqis themselves is notoriously unreliable.

Most Iraqis, like most Arabs everywhere, are extremely polite and hospitable. It’s a guidebook cliché, but it’s a guidebook cliché for a reason. Their culture requires them to welcome foreigners, and they take that requirement seriously. Most will conceal any negative opinions they may have against a visitor personally or even the visitor’s country – and this is true even for visitors from enemy countries. They don’t mean to be deceptive. They’re just being nice.

There’s another problem with picking up the mood of the street – politics. For decades Iraqis have lived either in fear of the state or in fear of militias. They had to learn to keep their opinions to themselves if they wanted to live.

~~~

I asked Sergeant Nick Franklin if he could help me arrange an interview with one of the Iraqis the Army trusts to provide real information. I was tired of trying to learn about Iraq through the lens of the United States military, and tired of asking Iraqis what they thought while they were in the presence of American soldiers.

What were Iraqis saying when Americans weren’t in the room? That’s what I wanted to know. Even if I had disembedded myself from the Army and wandered around Iraq by myself, I still wouldn’t be able to figure that out because I’m an American, too.

Read Michael Totten’s entire interview with “Sayid”, an Iraqi “straight shooter” that the Army’s been using as an information source for years, who more or less tells it like it is, as he understands it.

And don’t forget on your way out the door, there:

You tip waiters in restaurants, right? I can’t go all the way to Iraq and write these dispatches for free. Travel in the Middle East is expensive, and I have to pay my own way. If you haven’t donated in the past, please consider contributing now.

Also, although I disagree with him politically on perspective and “false pretenses” charge, check out Thomas Ricks’ blog for his series of entries, Iraq the Unraveling (his latest, XVIII).

During a series of email and telephone exchanges Matthew Degn relayed to www.regimeofterror.com… his vast array of experiences working with intelligence issues relating to the current and former situation in Iraq. Among his responsibilities during his years in Iraq Degn worked as a civilian interrogator attached to the U.S. Army in Iraq before working as a Senior Policy/Intelligence Adviser to Deputy General Kamal and other top intelligence officials with the Iraq’s Ministry of Interior. Degn, currently working on a book about his experiences in Iraq (personal website here), continues to argue against those that feel there was no link between terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s regime based on his involvement with hundreds of interrogations in Iraq and his involvement with many of the Iraqi Intelligence officials with the Ministry of Interior. Degn says that much of the public perception about Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorism are incorrect.

Degn is currently the Director of the Intelligence Studies Program and a professor at American Military University currently a professor at American Military University whose testimony about events in Iraq has been cited by NPR, ABC News, the Washington Post and elsewhere.

~~~

Another reason for conflicting reports that Degn pointed out is both the chain of command in the U.S. government’s many agencies and compartmentalization of information (”need to know”). Degn said he saw firsthand how these two factors led to vital wartime information being “watered down” before it mades its way to official reports and investigations.

So where are the effigies of Obama being burned and hanged?

Kind of obscene for the little girl to be carrying that sign, don’t'cha think?

It should be a victory day for all; but not without cautious optimism, nervous trepidation, and healthy skepticism.

Peter Feaver:

Early reports that General Odierno felt the deadline should slip a bit gave way to more recent reports that he was comfortable meeting the deadline. This reassured me somewhat, until I re-read this assessment by Stephen Biddle. He offers a sober assessment of a number of ways the Iraq project could unravel, and a grim reminder that, as bad as Iraq has been, there are many ways that it could become much worse if we misplay our hand.

And in fact, Biddle intimates that the United States may very well be in the process of misplaying its hand by hewing too rigidly to the SoFA withdrawal schedule. The money quote: “The most effective option for prevention [of renewed violence in Iraq] is to go slow in drawing down the U.S. military presence in Iraq.” Biddle recognizes that slowing the withdrawal would impose costs — strain on the armed forces and, perhaps a greater hurdle, political embarrassment for Obama and for the Maliki government. But he reminds us that letting the positive trajectory in Iraq reverse imposes great costs, too, and thus concludes: “On balance, paying the cost of a slower withdrawal, while expensive, may ultimately be the cheaper approach.”

A reader of Thomas Ricks’ blog sends this:

Despite recent reporting, the area is stable, while still not completely safe. The attacks mentioned in the article are not part of a mounting trend, but are normal and to be expected from time to time in this environment. If we want Iraq to return to normal it will necessarily mean making itself more vulnerable to these kinds of attacks.

But we have taken it as far as Americans can. In my opinion, anything we do now may do more harm than good in delaying the inevitable and reinforcing their, at times, crippling malaise. The only enduring role for Americans is to provide the safety net to prevent complete collapse, chaos, and civil war; three things that I do not believe will happen in any event.”

Here’s hoping the peace is sustainable and that the withdrawal of combat troops from the major cities doesn’t prove premature.

As combat troops withdraw from major cities in Iraq, in victory, and in accordance with Article 5 of the security agreement between the U.S. and Iraqi governments, Operation Proper Exit brought 6 wounded warriors back to Iraq for closure and to see the progress that has been gained:

”It kind of helps you heal mentally and emotionally, to close that chapter in your life so you can move on,” he said. ”The progress that’s been made—it shows that we made a sacrifice but it was for a reason.”

The six veterans, who were accompanied by civilians with the Troops First Foundation, toured the Air Force theater hospital here, speaking with medical personnel. Most of the soldiers received some kind of treatment at the hospital before they moved to Germany for further medical care.

Air Force Staff Sgt. Jamal Hogan, a nurse here, said he remembers providing medical care for two of the soldiers during a previous deployment in 2007.

”It’s awesome,” he said, hugging one of his former patients, ”to know that people made it—he’s alive, walking around. That means a lot to me.”

Following the hospital tour, the veterans participated in a town hall-style meeting, which began with a standing ovation by about 200 soldiers at a Morale, Welfare, and Recreation facility here.

After telling the audience their personal war stories, the veterans fielded questions ranging from how they dealt with physical recovery to post traumatic stress disorder to their long-term goals.

Sgt. Robert Brown, who lost his right leg to sniper fire in September 2006 in Ramadi, Iraq, said he is training to qualify for the U.S. rowing team at the 2012 Paralympic games in London.

Near the end of the meeting, a young soldier stood up and asked them, with everything they’ve experienced, if they would be willing to return for another tour in Afghanistan or Iraq.

All six nodded.

”Sure, we’d go back,” one said. “We’re here with you right now, aren’t we?”

Good on President Obama and Stephen Colbert (and General Odierno) for participating in entertaining the troops:

center>

Hat tip: Foreign Policy Passport

North Korea warned Wednesday that any attempt to stop, board or inspect its ships would constitute a “grave violation.”

The regime also said it could no longer promise the safety of U.S. and South Korean warships and civilian vessels in the waters near the Korea’s western maritime border.

“They should bear in mind that the (North) has tremendous military muscle and its own method of strike able to conquer any targets in its vicinity at one stroke or hit the U.S. on the raw, if necessary,” it said.

The maritime border has long been a flashpoint between the two Koreas. North Korea disputes the line unilaterally drawn by the United Nations at the end of the Koreas’ three-year war in 1953, and has demanded it be redrawn further south.

The truce signed in 1953 and subsequent military agreements call for both sides to refrain from warfare, but doesn’t cover the waters off the west coast.

North Korea has used the maritime border dispute to provoke two deadly naval skirmishes – in 1999 and 2002.

On Wednesday, the regime promised “unimaginable and merciless punishment” for anyone daring to challenge its ships.

Personally, I think this is all the result of a regime change happening inside DPRK, but it could also be a military distraction similar to the cause of the 1983 Falkland Islands War. In any event, let’s HOPE Obama is ready to lead on day 130 or so ’cause he sure as hell ain’t leading on day 1, and he’s gonna have to start leading instead of blaming if he wants things to CHANGE.