McLatchy Newspapers and other Old Media outlets somehow missed the story about Al Queda terrorists in Iraq killing 15 day old babies. The Old Media’s political nuance was a more important headline, and a more just cause apparently.
An Iraqi officer near Sinjar told me that recently a group of perhaps twenty “jihadists,” many of them foreign, descended on a Nineveh village. The Iraqi officer said the terrorists killed some adults and two babies. One baby they murdered was 15 days old.
Until recently, such terror attacks inside Iraq could have coerced the village into sheltering Al Qaeda. Yet this time, the “jihadists” got an unexpected reception. Local men grabbed their rifles and poured fire on the demons, slaughtering them. Nineteen terrorists were destroyed. Times have changed for al Qaeda here. Too many Iraqis have decided they are not going to take it anymore. Al Qaeda in Iraq is still fighting, and they are tough and wily, but al Qaeda Central seems to realize there are easier targets elsewhere, perhaps in Europe, where many people demonstrate weakness in the face of terror.
Michael Yon is an independent reporter in Iraq. When others flee or hide in their Green Zone bunkers with dozens of security guards, or when (as is the case with McLatchy services) media outlets choose to sit back and play armchair politician/general…he goes out to the hot zones. He does it to find and report the truth-not to play politics. This latest story of his is just as good as any other; ie, AMAZING!
Al Qaeda is still trying to spin Iraq into civil war, but whereas in 2005-2006 al Qaeda was succeeding, today al Qaeda is being shredded.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
I wonder how far McCain can rehabilitate the public reputation of the war in Iraq?
He’s also got the economy to worry about.
Scott,
I think your link to Michael Yon’s dispatch is scrambled eggs.
The fact that, over this short run, the violence is returning to previous levels is, IMO, not something that should be examined on a minute-by-minute basis from this distance. Our 24-hour news cycles atempts to keep each event as though it were THE harbinger of change.
I certainly did not consider every relatively calm day of 2005 and 2006 to be the confirmation of "we are turing the corner in Iraq" that Conservatives were promulgating from FoxNews every night.
However the prospects that Iraq will never, at least in our liftetimes, be a unified country again, and that Osama bin Laden has been allowed to go free so that we can preside over a civil war in Iraq is a cause for concern.
That has not changed over the past year. And is something that does not appear to be likely to change over the next, no matter how much the Bush Administration cheerleaders tell us to Stay the Course.
.
Re: “Al Qaeda is still trying to spin Iraq into civil war, but whereas in 2005-2006 al Qaeda was succeeding, today al Qaeda is being shredded.”
The story that Iraq was all sweetness and light until al Qaeda started the civil war, from nothing, is a falsehood that Conservatives have been using as their alibi for Rumsfeld’s botched occupation from day one.
The civil war started the day the military and poolice disbanded and the weapons depots were left unguarded. And Donald Rumsfeld had the nerve to joke about it “Stuff happens!”. As though this one act of omission did not cost thousands of lives)
The civil war was well on its way when the Shia had the government and Sunnis frozen out. (No matter how much we here the anecdotes about “my friend the Sunni who was working in the government. We all know who was running, and looting the Iraqi government all along).
The civil war was well on its way when ethnic clensing of Baghdad neighborhoods began in ernest.
Al Qaeda just took full advantage of an opportunity the Bush Administration handed it on a silver platter. And it appears that Conservatives are still pledged to maintain the story that, were it not for that one single Mosque bombing, all of this civil war would never have happened and everything would be perfect under the brilliant ledership of Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush.
And, as we all know from the pentagon’s own assesment, foreign fighters still make up less than 10% of the “insurgence”, which means that 90%+ of them are indigenous Iraqis).
But then, this is perfectly in keeping with the standard line that no matter what happens on Bush’s watch, it is always “somebody else’s fault”.
Steve, show some hope! President Clinton or President Obama will be able to unite the country. With his message of hope, everyone will lay down their arms. With her vast military and diplomatic experience….how could things get worse? Besides….this article’s not about violence in Iraq as a whole. Is it?
Steve, Iraq IS a unified country. The Kurdish areas are somewhat autonomous, but that’s how it should be. Unless Obama makes it to the White House, Iraq will be a strong and rich country. It will have a relatively difficult relationship with the US until the ruling regime in Iran is destroyed, but the "civil war" with foreign jihadis will never again, in our lifetimes, threaten its unity.
And yet, this is what you’re doing, yourself, isn’t it? Time and time again, highlighting and underscoring the negative while minimizing and dismissing the positives.
Michael Yon has been great on the war coverage.
No, but you most certainly considered every violent day of 2005 and 2006 to be a confirmation of “the war is lost, we must run away! Run away!” that liberal paper tigers promulgated from CNN every day and night.
Yes, we let him go. It wasn’t that he escaped.
That is sooooo 2006, Steve.
Put the Philly cheese steak sandwich down for a moment Philly Steve, and read a current newspaper.
No matter how things improve, the anti-war Bush-hating left will stay the course to defeat, long after it’s already been won.
Word, that’s because opposition to the war was never about opposition to the war. The war is just a catalyst for venting Bush-hate and political alienation. Steve demonstrates that in microcosm every time he makes it a "conservative" issue as if the war is only a Republican thing with only Republican stormtroopers working for Haliburton etc. On 10/12/02, the war was bi-partisan. On 11/06/06 the war became bi-partisan again.
Re: "Steve, show some hope! President Clinton or President Obama will be able to unite the country."
I have no such optimism. Even were either of these two individuals to be elected, not one single Conservative would give either of them the slightest chance to succeed. FoxNews would start the ticker “Days in Iraq” on the bottom right corner of their news screen immediately after the innaugeration, right next to the “death count on Clinton/Obama’s Watch”.
The same Conservatives who now find a way to place the blame for every event and action since 2001 as being the 100% fault of Bill clinton would, starting at 12:01 January 21, 2009, declare that EVERYTHING was now officially Hillary’sBarak’s fault.
The right-wing hate machine is gearing up now and not one single Conservative on this site would refrain from taking part in it. Not one.
.
Re: “And yet, this is what you’re doing, yourself, isn’t it?”
No. I have not made one single post regarding the recent spate of violence in Iraq, other than the one you cite. Not one.
.
Re: “Steve demonstrates that in microcosm every time he makes it a “conservative” issue as if the war is only a Republican thing with only Republican stormtroopers working for Haliburton etc. ”
Can you cite even one time where I have compared Republicans to Nazi’s? Even one? Such vile accusations are the province of Conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh (“feminazis”), and Conservatives LOVE it when he does it. I will not ask a retraction since I know that, as a Conservative, you are exempt from accountability for what you say.
What I do claim is that Conservatives are wedded to defending George W. Bush role in maintaining the “Stay the course” plan of Donald Rumsfeld long after it was clear that this was costing thousands of lives and prolonging the war. Accountability is something for which George W. Bush must be protected, at all costs.
Steve,
You are projecting AGAIN. Every ‘evil’, "hate machine", not giving us "the slightest chance to succeed" and other such nonsense you try to attach to us "hateful" and whatever else "conservatives" comes back at the left 1,000 fold.
Before action in Afghanistan was even put in motion, the "anti-war" left was up in arms and blaming President Bush. Three days into the ground movement to Baghdad when US Forces stopped to sleep a few hours and let the log tail catch up, the media and the left were screaming "quagmire" and telling us we had no chance to win.
You want a "hate machine" full of lies and spoon fed idiocy from "thought leaders", look in a mirror and at the leftists in general. But then, no leftist is ever allowed to see progress when a republican (even a liberal republican like Bush) is in power. Real conservatives (not your fantasy) do give credit to leftists when it is due, but no leftists "are allowed to see it".
The left is all lock-stepping to their "thought leaders’" flutes, brimming with maniacal hate against one man whose sole ‘crime’ is standing up to those who have repeatedly demanded our total surrender or preferably death. These same islamofascist barbarians march right along side the "peace activist/anti-war" leftists as they assault unarmed US Soldiers in recruiting offices and send support (financial and moral) to the enemy.
Maybe the last paragraph may not fit you, in your opinion, and in your saner moments I would agree. However, in many of your comments, your projectionism and attacks on your insane fantasy version of "conservatives" leads many here to wonder.
I am sorry that the Iraqi actions were not over in one TV season (as it must have interrupted you viewing of ’24’). However, we are doing ALL we can to succeed even with the knives in the back from the "anti-war" left. You blatently ingnor our progress and broadcast any setback (real or wholly fabricated by CNN) and thus demean and belittle those of us actually DOING something to defend your hide from a threat you refuse to see due to your rabid hatred of "conservatives".
I dunno…can you cite one time where I’ve compared Democrats to Nazis? See how it works, Steve?
Steve: Are you a political bigot?
*gasp*
You are!
You are a political bigot!
Please stay away from my children.
Steve
Pot calling Kettle
Every time something bad happens in Iraq, it is yiou that says the "war is lost" just like Harry Reid. But you can not look atthe good news or independent reporting from Michael Yon andsee that progress is being made. Yes , Iraq is not a paradise, and may never be. But allthe talk about a Civil War there is ludicrous. It has never happened, and not the Mookie al Sadr has said he can not win, it is all but over, if it even had a beginning.
Did you readthe article about how all the Doom and Gloom in the MSM and Democrats helps give the enemy hope that they can win??? Every time the NY Slimes or LA Slimes writes an editorial about how we have lost, more American Soldiers get killed.
And sorry to tell you this, Faux News is turning into the MSM, it is getting closer to CNN and PMSNBC every day. Ailes has given his kid Faux News and he is big Buddies withe AL Gore. Hell, every commercial on Fox Radio is about how the world is going to end because of Global Warming. So the big bad boogie man of Faux News is going away. I have not watched Faux News in years. All News stations are just entertainment now anyway. There is no real news on any of them. It is a 24 hour contest to see how much crap they can muster up everyday.
I am really wanting to know what the Democrats plan is on the War on Terror??? Other than give Iraq to Al Queda and Iran??? I know Obama wants to talk to the 12th Iman Armenejad (spelling?) and give more money to the Palestinians. Geez, I am sure Al Queda and the Islamists are shaking in their boots about that. I really want to know what should we do??? Other than cut and run and leavethe Islamists bases for training and vast oil fiels for money to get weapons. Really how do Liberals want to go after Al Queda, and to stop Iran from getting the Bomb?? You do know that Armnejad says about every day that he will destroy Israel and the US. Do you really think talking to him will do anything other than embolden him. You know that is a sign of weakness in the Arab World, don’t you??? So please tell me what and how the Liberals will defend our country from these Islamists and not leave our Allies (Israel and Pakistan) to the wolves??? I am sure that you have a great answer. I mean you already know everything us "conservatives" are about.
If either of them are strong on prosecuting the war against Islamic terror, that is one major issue that trumps a lot of issue for me; and I would support them on this front.
I’ve never done that. But consider: 8 years of metasticizing under Clinton, planning stages under Clinton’s watch, culminating under the 9 months President Bush took office with key political positions held up by Carl Levin for partisan politics….. I think you can hold Bill Clinton’s feet to the fire for weak responses to terrorism; but overall, I’m not sure that any president at the time would have been awake enough at the wheel to make a radical policy shift in treating Islamic terror as more than just a law enforcement issue. 9/11 was our wake up call. Thank goodness we had a president in office who made a radical shift in policy in how we deal with Islamic terror.
No. Unlike you, Steve, I recognize that the credit for engaging in this war goes to George W. Bush. If Hillary and Barack continue prosecuting the war, they can partake in some of the credit; but they’d have a lot to make up for, in being "in the way" when it comes to winning. Didn’t "willing suspension of disbelief" Hillary try to ride on the coattails of surge success a couple of weeks ago?
Don’t you ever tire from looking so foolish? You should cut-and-paste a broken-record refrain and banner at the bottom of all your comments.
You’ve read one Philly Steve comment, you’ve pretty much read them all.
Everyone’s favorite liberal platitude man, Phillie Steve sez:
First of all, Steve, no expects Iraq to "unify" any more than we expect American’s to "unify". Different opinions and view points is the foundation of a democracy. Or in our case, a Republic with many democratic processes.
The key is a government that serves all *un*-unified opinions to the best of it’s ability. Just as we are still fine turning ours over centuries, the Iraqs are fine tuning theirs over a span of just 22 months approx. You expect formerly oppressed people to figure out the complexities of freely elected government in such a short time?
That said, do you also happen to have a big palm of a hand on your window with the word "Tarot" across it?? Your predictions of the "civil war" that was, and continues, exist only in your dreams. Just last September, Maliki himself said:
Let’s see… who shall I take as more legitimate on the definition of Iraq’s internal battles? Phillie Steve or Maliki? Lemmme think here…..
Word sez:
ROTFLMAO!!
I disagree Steve. I think Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton would unite America (particularly Sen Obama) in resolve and commitment to peace and unity in Iraq. I don’t believe you’re correct to say that conservatives would act as their opposites do putting political partisanship over patriotism. "I have no such optimism. Even were either of these two individuals to be elected, not one single Conservative would give either of them the slightest chance to succeed. FoxNews would start the ticker “Days in Iraq” on the bottom right corner of their news screen immediately after the innaugeration, right next to the “death count on Clinton/Obama’s Watch”."
Nope. Except for Desert Fox, and some pre-bombing concerns over Kosovo, Republicans backed all of President Clinton’s wars, attacks on Iraq, bombing campaigns, illegal invasions/occupations, and threatened invasions. There was some fringe rhetoric, but NOTHING at all in comparison to the anti-American-success cheering from the left today, and there wouldn’t be in the future. The anti-war theme is owned by Democrats…unless you think that San Fran is suddenly gonna go Republican.
I can’t say I have much faith in the Iraqi Army. I remember the ISG essentially saying it was at best unreliable and at worst the enemy. I hope things have changed and the Brits did their job.
Basra isn’t Baghdad; it’s fragile. It be must be stabilized as soon as possible, as it’s a vital port city and the ‘heart and lungs’ of the country.
If discipline isn’t returned to Basra in short order, Maliki will be a "dead man" walking he will be so politically exposed.
Doug, I’m not sure which ISG to which you refer… as in Iraq Study Group (911 report), or the Iraq Survey Group (document collectors in Iraq after our entry). But to base your current lack of "faith" in the Iraq Army on either ISG source is using dated material.
Indeed, tho it may not be what you wish to hear, your faith in their Army matters whit. It’s the faith of the Iraqis in their military and security abilities that counts for beans.
Too bad the Brits withdrew from Basra. Thank you Gordon Brown…. However this is a good test for the Iraqis themselves. They have demonstrated their will by their actions. Let us hope that will is backed up by competence. All of which should improve with experience.
I think you are wrong MH. These guys are not ready to face this kind of a fight, because it will almost certainly NOT be restricted to the Basra area. These are the Shiites and al Sadr runs them in the capital. They are almost certainly not ready to fight that fight.
We’d better get our butts down there fast or Basra becomes Western Iran.
You must have skimmed instead of reading, CentFla. I didn’t suggest the Iraq security forces would successfully overcome the violence. I said "let us hope that will is backed up by competence".
But this leads to two points. One, in agreement with one of your statements in another thread, about Iraq spending. The Iraq budget execution is still cumbersome and affects the security problem. It consists of part Saddam laws/part new govt laws. Few understand the process. And simple things can take massive amounts of signatures and approvals.
They can allocate their budget (and have), but have been unable to appropriate their Central Bank funds. (see the Jan 08 GAO report, which is also working on some old 2006 data as well… so still somewhat behind of the reality)
No appropriated funds for equipment means the Iraq security forces are not as well armed as the British were, and less able to maintain the peace against armed uprisings between rival factions… pretty much all of them Shia in that region.
Second major point, if the Iraq security forces cannot rise to this task, then you now have the perfect example of what will happen when troops are prematurely withdrawn .
BTW, the British troops did not wish to go, and were royally po’d at Brown’s mandate. Some Iraqis in Basra were ready to see them go. (Probably the rogue elements in both the Badr & Madhi armies). However the locals have been complaining about the security going downhill since Brown abandoned them.
Whoa boy…one of the few times I disagree with ya Scott. Either they decide to stay and finish the job thereby pissing off the far left to the nth degree or they decide to cut n’ run which will not bring peace and unity to Iraq.
Don’t see either of them uniting a colony of ants let alone this nation.
As Malikis is attempting to bring Basra some security and effectively put it under his central governance an immediate question arises: Is Sadr willing to give it up without a fight, and if he isn’t, what impact will this have on the "surge" having been a success (as the cease-fire will have been abandoned)?
The question is in fact huge. The drop in violence in Iraq is usually divided among four events: more American forces and their change in tactics, the Awakening movement, the Sadr ceasfire and, last, ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides generally being finished before the surge began.
(Even Stephen Biddle has stated in a Q and A: Questioner: Well, then, what do you attribute this whole change on the ground to? Is this due to what is called “the surge,” or good diplomacy by the U.S. military, or just luck? Biddle: All of those things have some role but I would put “luck” as probably the biggest.)
Whatever the formula is that cut violence down, it was a compound structural arrangement and Sadr’s truce played its role. The Bush Administration likes to tout the "surge" and it triggering the Awakening movement. But that theory may be tested shortly. Sadr is now under even greater pressure from his own officers to drop the agreement; last week he permitted his forces to wear their weapons, and stated they are permitted to use them to defend themselves; finally, yesterday he called for "country wide campaign of civil revolt"– Yet no one really knows what that entails.
Many thoughtful analysts find it not at all accidental that Sadr’s forces in four cities –all on the same day– clashed with authorities. Most probably, the thinking goes, Sadr is attempting the start numerous fires to impact the military strategy in Basra, rally up some popular support, and, in the process, prevent Maliki from purging his forces from the city.
Whether or not the above is true, the question needs to be asked, if Sadr is unwilling to give up Basra– and it’s unlike he is, and Maliki is determined to bring Basra back under political and civil control– and he is, then Sadr may have to decide soon whether to drop the truce, as time is running out for him.
Curt, why would President Obama or President Clinton go back on their promise to keep US troops in Iraq until 2013 if necessary? There’s no need to feed the nutroots and Philly Steves of the party once elected (as demonstrated by the election of a Democratic Congress that promised to end the war). Nah, I think the reality on the ground dictates the ebb and flow of forces now….not Presidential leadership. President Obama would pull the centrists and media back to the war in support of keeping forces there "…Because if you pull your troops out immediately, you do get chaos." (Gov Howard Dean 11/6/06 explaining why the Democratic Party lied to its supporters).
They’d still blame Bush (even if Pres Hillary was elected), but the fight would continue as needed, troops would come/go depending on the fight, and the American people (save the far left nutroots and Philly Steves) would unite in support of the war.
Pipedream? Maybe, but history has already shown it. They get elected by promising to end the war, but at the same time explain why they’re not ending the war. What they DON’T say…is that the cost of withdrawal is to invade a 3rd time under the worst possible conditions=much higher cost in blood and treasure.
A first look at Basra and oil prices:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a4vEiAGtd75E&refer=Canada
Scott, if they do keep their promise to keep troops into Iraq (which if I have heard correctly Obama has said he wants to just keep a strike force nearby…dictated by conditions on the ground) then the far left will skewer them, thus no uniting. I don’t care if its the messiah or the first woman President…they will not suddenly agree with keeping troops in their because they said so. If they pull out, Iraq becomes a AQ haven and they get blamed for it….thus, no uniting.
No, they have dug themselves a hole that will be the only place left for them shortly.
Curt, like I said, I agree there will always be truthers, Code Pinkos etc., but they were promised an end to the war in 06, bought the excuses, and while they still protest…it’s nothing. The effectual opposition to the war comes from the center and the media. The media didn’t hold Democrats accountable for their 06 end-the-war promises, and wouldn’t for Pres Obama either imo. Why would they change from the historical pattern of making excuses and gushing over him? In the center, I think whoever wins, if the Surge continues success then the center will take new heart in the fact that the best pol/mil leader available is running the show (McCain) or they’ll take heart from Obama’s schmoozing. Either way, the center moves back to supporting the effort.
Why wouldn’t the anti-war left believe excuses from the DNC and Pres Obama as they did from the DNC and Congress in 06?
Okay Scott, Curt… a very pertinent joke that’s related to your "will they unite or not" asides here…
Re: "Pipedream? Maybe, but history has already shown it. They get elected by promising to end the war, but at the same time explain why they’re not ending the war. "
That’s OK. Republicans get elected promising to "cut spending" Conservatives buy it every election year as well.
Not true. See also 2006.
"That’s OK. Republicans get elected promising to "cut spending" Conservatives buy it every election year as well."
Nice try at deflecting the charge against Democrats with a childish "well they do it too" argument though. Too bad history proves you wrong (again).