How Do You Know The Iraq Surge Is Working?

When...

1) The Shi'ites start killing each other instead of focusing on the Sunni.

2) When the French Ambassador visits Iraq and talks around "apologizing" for ignoring them.

3) When Katie Couric goes to the war zone.

4) When Angelina Jolie shows up in the war zone talking about the future of Iraqi refugees.


Can you smell that? That's the smell of victory.



Of course, there are always spoilers and spoilers.

Summary only...

We Win, They Lose: Sign the Petition

Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party are working hard to remind you that Iraq is a civil war and working harder to irradicate words like "War on Terror" and al Qaeda in Iraq.

You are supposed to forget how many times Al Qaeda (al Qaida) has issued statements from the Zawahiri, Zarqawi, and Bin Laden indicating the central theater of the war is in Iraq.

Maybe you remember the most recent statements, but you might not know or remember that Iraq was made a central part of the war on terror (and against Islamic extremists) back in 1998 by Bin Laden:

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Read the rest because the real "AQ in Iraq" has been going on for some time before the actual "shooting war" with Iraq began and we aren't talking about "nebulous ties" with the regime. We're talking about having extensive contacts within the country and its citizens.

Then there was the infamous bin Laden statement in 2003:

Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons. [snip]

Muslims' doctrine and banner should be clear in fighting for the sake of God. He who fights to raise the word of God will fight for God's sake.

Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.

The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.

Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden.

Summary only...

The Middle Ground: On Total War II

Following up yesterday's post regarding Total War in Iraq, Small Wars Journal posts a response from Col. David Kilcullen, currently serving on Gen. Petraeus's staff in Iraq, to an article in Harper's Weekly- Dead End: Counterinsurgency as Military Malpractice.

Col. Kilcullen necessarily and briefly focuses on the complaints Luttwick has regarding the newest counter-insrugency manual, FM 3-24, refuting several by pointing out that Luttwick was reading the "draft" version and several of his complaints had already been addressed.

In reading Luttwak's piece, the first issue is that Luttwak, who has many things to his credit, but fighting an insurgency is not one of them, tends to state things in a very affirmative manner. One such statement:

But while they are willing to wear the uniforms and accept training up to a point, Sunni Arabs are naturally disinclined to help capture or kill insurgents who are fighting to restore the Sunni Arab ascendancy over Iraq. Besides, their families would be in deadly peril if they were suspected of loyalty to their government, and by extension to the Americans. Some of those policemen and soldiers know much about the insurgents and where exactly they might be found, but are still of no help in finding them, precisely because they are insurgents themselves.

This totally ignores current trends in al-Anbar and the surging "Awakening" or "Salvation Council" who have certainly have been fighting al-Qaida. But, more profoundly, he tends to label all he surveys as thus: "Sunni Arabs are naturally disinclined to help capture or kill insurgents who are fighting to restore the Sunni Arab ascendancy over Iraq".

I believe this premis is exactly what leads Luttwak to his conclusions that, since ALL are insurgents, why fight a "counter-insurgency"? Why not simply declare them all the enemy and fight the war in that manner?

In short, he is advocating the same tactics as this previous author, but under a different guise:

The simple starting point is that insurgents are not the only ones who can intimidate or terrorize civilians. For instance, whenever insurgents are believed to be present in a village, small town, or distinct city district—a very common occurrence in Iraq at present, as in other insurgency situations—the local notables can be compelled to surrender them to the authorities, under the threat of escalating punishments, all the way to mass executions. That is how the Ottoman Empire could control entire provinces with a few feared janissaries and a squadron or two of cavalry. The Turks were simply too few to hunt down hidden rebels, but they did not have to: they went to the village chiefs and town notables instead, to demand their surrender, or else. A massacre once in a while remained an effective warning for decades

.

Apparently, the only successful counterinsurgencies that Luttwak has found were those committed by the most brutal oppressors simply because they were brutal and did not care about public opinion. In fact, he starts out with the successors of Ghengis Khan who equally used "terror" (40,000 heads at the gates of the city) in order to instill fear and quail the population, often before he even arrived.

He goes on to talk about the Romans and their use of "sticks and carrots", but largely focuses on the "sticks". He completely misses, or breezes by, a central point, even in discussing Ottoman rule: the people who don't resist are not necessarily cowed by all the violence, but may, indeed, have eventually accepted the rule of these two empires because there was a political or economic advantage. Or, at the very least, did not significantly change their way of life. For instance, he touches on religion and its influence over people, uniting them for war. There is a historical precedent for Rome trying to inflict its religion on the masses it had conquered, particularly in later years, worshipping Caesar as a god. However, provincial governors were notorious for paying this concept lip service and allowing the masses to practice their religion largely unmolested.

A good example of this is actually written in the bible in the story of Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees and Jesus. While some see Pontius Pilate as having abdicated his responsibilities as a just adjudicator and allowing a wrongly accused Jesus to be crucified, his symbolic "washing" of his hands, interpreted as washing away his guilt by modern Christians, was in fact persuing the usual provincial practic of staying well out of the religious affairs of the subjects. As long as the ruling religious party was satisfied and rebellion turned away. Historically, Pontius Pilate went back to Rome, if not exactly disgraced, hardly a distinguished governor covered in glory and wealth. His governance was plagued by many little uprisings which he put down alternately with political cajoling and, as Luttwick notes, some harsh punishments.

But, the most important aspects of Roman rule were not actually its relying on harsh punishments. It was because these provinces benefited from their interaction with Rome through security and economic development. Traders of silks and spices from the far east would not have seen the small Roman outposts along the infamous Silk Road as an oppressive presence, but a source of security that allowed them to trade and flourish. Roman ships going in and out of ports in the Mediteranean, such as Constantinople and Alexandria, bought and sold goods that fueled local economies.

That is not to say that every subject was happy under the yoke of Rome, but it is quite fantastic to believe that it was simply the fear of reprisals that kept many of the subject nations deferential to the empire. Particularly, as Luttwick notes, since Rome had, in all actually, few legionnaires in comparison to modern armies, covering a very large territory. If, in fact, it was simply reprisals that kept the populace cowed from insurgency, the Romans would have needed a much larger force.

One other problem that Luttwick necessarily breezes over in order to make his point is that, while Rome itself might have had a bare 300,000 legionnaires, the local populace actually formed its own constabulary and local auxillary forces, not inlcuding the legions that were raised out of these subject nations. Many of whom joined for the exact reasons that Luttwick disdains: the benefits of pay and citizenship.

Rome, nor the Ottoman Empire, could exist for hundreds of years simply on the prospects of putting down insurgencies over their entire empires with only exemplifying punishments.

That is not to say that crucifying 6,600 slaves along the Apian way was not an effective deterent to future insurgencies. However, not many years after Pompey ended the last dregs of the insurgency, Gaius Julius Caesar returned from battle, fought a civil war and, during its years, literally bought off many would be resisters. Including an attempt to abolish the use of slaves in businesses in order to provide work for common Roman citizens. He understood the idea that Romans may be attached to their republican ideas and ancient ways, but could be brought to his side by succombing to its benefits. This order was later rescinded, of course, because his wealthy supporters bulked, but the attempt at socio-economic engineering to purchase support should not be ignored. Neither should his rather astute reversal. One could even call it a "political solution".

Again, Luttiwak dismisses this important aspect of "counterinsurgency" in ancient empires in order to make his central point: insurgencies are won or "countered" by equal amounts of "terror", "reprisals" or "collective punishment". The fact that we are politically and ideologically undesiring and incapable of enacting such "terror" on the populace is seen as ceding the entire populace space to the insurgents:

Needless to say, this is not a political limitation that Americans would ever want their armed forces to overcome, but it does leave the insurgents in control of the population, the real “terrain” of any insurgency. Of course, the ordinary administrative functions of government can also be employed against the insurgents, less compellingly perhaps but without need of violence.

He says there is a way to obtain information on insurgents through natural association with citizens and the government, but he believes this is also ceded because, unlike post World War II Germany and Japan, we did not institute a military governance and take over the day to day activities that would place us in control of those spaces and information. Again, he dismisses the entire purpose of having "joint security stations" or "combat outposts" or "civil affairs patrols and projects" without nary a mention of the increased contact, control and security for the population which necessarily leads to this "intelligence" being shared.

Again, all to get to his central thesis:

All its best methods, all its clever tactics, all the treasure and blood that the United States has been willing to expend, cannot overcome the crippling ambivalence of occupiers who refuse to govern, and their principled and inevitable refusal to out-terrorize the insurgents, the necessary and sufficient condition of a tranquil occupation.

In otherwords, because we are unwilling to kill hundreds of thousands and then press home this advantage over a subjugated nation through tough military governance, Luttwick is declaring counterinsurgency as a complete and utter waste of time and people.

The big "loss".

One point Luttwak makes which has some basis in fact is that, regardless of the political ideology that is being implemented, people can and will fight against what others may see as their "own best interest". It would seem that democracy and freedom are by far more beneficial than living under a tyrant such as Saddam. Yet, as Luttwak points out, the removal of Saddam did not benefit the "Sunni", but tossed them from power. He also points to their co-religious status with the "foreigners" to indicate that this is a stronger bond than any idea on freedom or democracy.

However, I believe that this is a failed evaluation of the Iraq insurgency as well. Not taking in all the permutations of the "insurgency", he fails to comprehend the things that make people fight and the things that, ultimately, separate them from other groups or members of the insurgency as well as provides the wedge by which they can be and are being split from each other politically, materially and militarily. He also fails to recognize that, regardless of how strong an ideology is perceived to be in the general populace, the same things that would make the citizens and government of the occupying country give up the fight, are at work on the insrugent supporting populace of the occupied: casualties, exhaustian, severe economic depression and political in fighting.

Another historical, let us call it, incompleteness, is his reference to Joseph Bonaparte's rule of Spain and the ensuing insurgency:

The very word “guerrilla,” which now refers only to a tactic, was first used to describe the ferocious insurgency of the illiterate Spanish poor against their would-be liberators, under the leadership of their traditional oppressors. On July 6, 1808, King Joseph of Spain presented a draft constitution that for the first time in Spain’s history offered an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, and the abolition of the remaining feudal privileges of the aristocracy and of the Church. At that time, abbeys, monasteries, and bishops still owned every building and every piece of land in 3,148 towns and villages, which were inhabited by some of Europe’s most wretched tenants. Despite the fact that the new constitution would have liberated them and let them keep their harvests for themselves, the Spanish peasantry failed to rise up in its support.

He goes on to say that this was because the church used the central thesis that Bonaparte and the French were out to destroy the Catholic religion and, of course, because the occupier of the throne and alleged "liberator" was not Spanish. A central reason why Bonaparte could not rouse the peasants to overthrow their traditional leadership in favor of this grand republicanism. While Catholicism and nationality may have been over-arching ideologies that tied the insurgency together, Luttiwick takes in the "grand scheme" and totally dismisses the reality of an occupying French Napoleon army.

This army did not come into towns and immediately set up provincial, indigenous governments or institute elections. Its first actions, being a foraging army, was to literally steal or demand food, clothing, wine, horses, transportation, etc from the local populace. It raped and pillaged (not quite in the medieval manner, but attrocious none the less) its way through Spain. There was no economic benefit to the occupation and certainly no direct or local presence or shift in ideological governing, thus, no immediate benefit to the local populace.

What good was freedom of the press if the French Army drove by and took all your recently harvested produce and livestock? What good was an independent judiciary if you could not feed your family?

These are the basics at work in Iraq. It is not only survival against the potential murderous actions of the insurgents, but a deep instinct of personal survival against the deprevation of basic needs. One might also add that, had the Spanish Catholic Church instituted the second Inquisition against its own followers in the middle of a rebellion, it would be suffering the same fate as Al Qaida as it kills "apostates", "heretics" and "spies": feared and reviled.

There in lies the truth about insurgencies. For all the ideological ties that bind, a population can and will determine when remaining with the insurgency is no longer beneficial.

In short, incomplete or inaccurate history does not a failed counterinsurgency make.

I'll let Kilcullen reference the Field Manual issues Luttwak degrades.

H/T Mudville


Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

Anniversary of Iraq Liberation from Saddam

Marine in historic war photo identified

On April 9, 2003, as a tow chain pulled down the larger-than-life statue of Saddam Hussein in downtown Baghdad, news photographers captured one of the most iconic moments of the Iraq war.
Two similar versions of the same photo — taken by photographers from Reuters and the Associated Press — were plastered on the front page of newspapers across the world, symbolizing the end of the invasion. In each, a gritty-looking Marine in the foreground eyes the crowd and the statue. Captions accompanying the photos didn't include his name.

Now, on the fourth anniversary of the statue's fall, Marine Corps Times has identified and located the mystery Marine. He's back in Iraq.

Sgt. Kirk Dalrymple, then 22, now 26, pushed into Baghdad in 2003 as an assaultman, a job with responsibility for supporting fire against enemy tanks and bunkers. Now a Criminal Investigation Division agent, he's on his second deployment to Iraq.

Summary only...

Things to Read

On scene in Baquba:

The helicopters barely touched the ground at the edge of Qubah long enough for 241 soldiers to leap out and begin moving into the town to go house to house in search of insurgents as artillery fire shattered trees in the surrounding palm groves. At the same time, a convoy of 19 Humvees, two Bradley tanks and several other vehicles rumbled toward Qubah from the opposite end. Gunfights broke out as soon as U.S. troops from the air assault reached Qubah's ruddy streets, with insurgents letting machine guns loose from several buildings. One U.S. soldier took a burst of fire in the chest at virtually point-blank range that knocked him on his back. But his body armor saved him from serious injury, and a moment later he was up after emptying his own weapon into the gunmen while on his back.

Hooah! Get some!

Summary only...

We Who Are About To Die, Salute You!

Grey Eagle reports at the Milblogs, the likely outcome of the recent House Bill. As already noted, the President will veto this bill, effectively breaking the military bank. The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing. They have delivered their base with an "end to the war", while keeping the center by "supporting the troops" with funds. All of the angst over the "pork" is political strategizing to take advantage of the Democrats one weakness: their other campaign promises to cut "corruption" and be "fiscally conservative", managing and decreasing the national debt.

Of course, no one that follows the fiscal realities of the state could take such promises seriously since buying and trading on debt of the US or any other state is the highest stakes of investment. The US simply represents "blue chip" stock. Thus, there is no real incentive to decrease debt, though, to manage it to inflation at a similar rate as fiscal growth maintains a steady source of income from investment in bonds, treasury bills, etc, while not placing the US in jeopardy. Though, it is a precarious business and requires much grit.

Thus, the Democrats promises of "fiscal conservation" are barely lip service, along with the pretense at managing corruption in congress. Eliminating corruption should be unnecessary, yet, they know their own kind and know that they are all in it for the power and money. What they give to the citizens are the crumbs. To believe otherwise is to believe in faeries and elves.

Yet, somewhere between the things they want and the things they do, the nation continues on like the "great ship" that it is often referred to.

The true purpose of the bill is four fold:

1) Expecting the president to veto the bill, it will place the blame for "defunding" the forces on the President's doorstep. Particularly as the wrangling will continue over funds until someone is willing to compromise.

2) It will effectively slow down or stop all together the "surge" that nearly all of congress was opposed to. Petreaus will be forced to manage with the forces that he has in place. The entire security plan will fall totally on Petraeus's ability to bring up forces already in theater, moving them from support rolls into actual combat. Reserves that almost always exist, though rarely discussed. Further, it will require many more Iraqi troops to leave other areas. Petraeus as a diplomat will be the question. He may well have to convince the Kurds that they have a stake in the maintenance of a unified Iraq so that they will be willing to send additional troops. Victory, in fact, will ride on the next few months.

While the Democrats insist that the time tables and "benchmarks" are "incentives" for the Iraqis, in truth, they are whips upon our forces who, having no choice but to continue the mission as ordered, will break themselves, probably incurring much higher casualties. Their goal has always been "the mission", not retreat.

3) Depending on the length of time it takes to parse out the appropriations, the forces will also be forced to decrease their over all patrols and agressive actions in Iraq. They will slowly be constrained to force patrols within the immediate area of their bases, if not eventually confined to base except for small forces with specific tasks or missions. As the hope of the Democrats, to "engage" al Qaida only. Though, this is but a ruse as well since al Qaida in Iraq does not wear a uniform or badge, blends with the populace as well as with other insurgent groups. Which means, regardless of the posturing by the Democrats about fighting the "true" terrorists, there will be very little action against al Qaida. They will be allowed to flourish.

Further, inability to project force within the surrounding areas will leave our Forward Operating Bases vulnerable to attacks. Whether that is increased mortaring or actually concentrated forces will depend on the area the FOBs are in. Many will be forced to close an bring troops back into larger bases for protection. Again, undermining the Democrats political "strong on terrorism" ruse as the most vulnerable bases will be in the al Anbar province where most of the al Qaida in Iraq and various linked "jihad" groups are active and base from. However, it will be little noted or covered as such an issue since the Democrats and the media will paint this as an effect of the President's veto.

4) Finally, as our forces are forced to retreat into their bases for lack of reserves, arms, ammunition and number of viable vehicles (the rest needing repaired) and the security plan actually fails, whether or not the time table for withdrawal actually survives the next round of political wrangling, will be moot. In fact, the political situation in Iraq, along with the ungovernable violence that will ensue, will force our withdrawal as we will be unable to defend or influence the onslaught and commanders will, by their secondary objective, be forced to make decisions that protect our forces. Those decisions will be to withdraw forces to secure locations, most likely outside of Iraq or home.

For all the posturing about supporting the troops, these acts will lead to more, not less, American and coalition casualties. They will simply appear in clusters around or inside bases, as opposed to one to three a day outside on patrols. This is a sacrifice the Democrats are willing to make, along with our position as a strong nation with a near invincible army.

One may wonder why the Democrats would place our forces and the country in such a position. Many pundits have commented on the various advantageous the Democrats seek. They feel confident based on certain core beliefs, not simply because the Amercian body politic is unenamored with the war in Iraq, but because they genuinely feel that Iraq was not, is not and will not be a security issue for the United States. They are also working from the position that they have held from the beginning of the "War on Terror", that terrorists (in fact, Wahabi, Salafist Imperialists) do not require full on military action, regardless of state sponsors or concentrated areas, but require "surgical" removal, either through small special forces or through covert operations to remove certain leadership and financial elements. Either through covert killing, arrests (make no mistake, the capture and removal of terrorist linked individuals to "CIA" covert prisons or extra-judicious "rendition" was a Democrat creation and they will continue to use it, regardless of political outcry from allies) or through political and financial manouvers they hope will sway nations or others from supporting or financing such actors.

In fact, tribute to be paid to the new "Barbary Pirates".

Secondly, they view the outcome of Iraq as a "win/win" situation upon withdrawal regardless of whether it is politically stabilized or a genocidal civil war ensues with Iran as a major backer of the most likely to win: the Shia majority. This is exactly why the Democrats have been insisting on opening direct talks with Iran. The Democrats are anticipating their continued presence in congress as a majority as well as the probability of getting a Democrat in the White House. This is why Kerry was speaking to the Iranian representative at the Davos conference, among other issues involving attacks on our forces. Promises of talks with the Iranians may have lead them to insist on Sadr's withdrawal from Iraq and a stand down of his forces as their attacks on US forces using Iranian arms and money were escalating to potential confrontation.

The Iranians have nothing to fear from this action as they are betting on the failure of the security plan and the withdrawal of US forces as well. They have plenty of other political allies in Iraq and probably feel that Sadr could easily return as the "triumphant" head of a new force to "protect" the Shia in Iraq and reconstitute his power, ably pointing out the failure of US forces to do so. In fact, Iranian backed politicos have done this several times. This is why such organizations as DAWA and SCIRI were able to spin up so quickly and gain massive support within their respective regions for the last two votes. The leaders were in Iran and returned with money and guns, securing control of major government and financial institutions as well as businesses. A tested and successful practice of Hezbollah and other Iranian backed organizations through out the Middle East.

In terms of al Qaida in Iraq, there can be no mistaking the expected outcome post US withdrawal. The Democrats are expecting that the Iraqi security forces will be "let lose" along with the militias, to root out and destroy Al Qaida and any other jihadist or insurgent groups with extreme prejudice. The fact that this will include the killing of a large number of Iraqis (Sunni) as well as the probable refugee crisis, barely causes congress to blink. We are talking about the same group of people (almost exactly the same congressional leaders) that stood by and watched 1 million Rawandans be massacred. Many of these same people were involved in political activism that resulted in the withdrawal of US forces and the deaths of millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Loasians. Then there is Darfur.

Third, through these auspices, the Democrats are willing to bet on the increased power and rise of Shia Islamists to counter the Sunni Islamists. In effect, causing the Sunni and Shia to turn and face each other as the "closer" enemy. Something that Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden have routinely railed about in their caustic analysis of Muslim behavior in the last century. The Democrats are willing to accept a potential nuclear Iran and the rise of nuclear states in the ME such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

All good, wholesome detente politics, straight from the Cold War manual.

The Democrats are hoping to use Egypt and Saudi Arabia as military counters, but are also looking for financial leverage with Iran. Iran's economy is based on oil, gas and minerals. It has limited industrial capabilities. It's export revenues are dominated by 70% oil receipts. At the same time, over 70% of its population is on some sort of government stipend. The Democrats are looking into the future where they expect something similar to the "Ford in China" moment that began the normalization of relations and the future financial relationship that some feel has kept China from becoming a major military rival (until sometime in the near future where everyone is waiting breathlessly for China to become the number one economic force in the world, leading to their military dominance).

In fact, while Democrats and Republicans alike have been making noises about becoming less dependent on foreign oil, they are seeking ways to maintain relationships with oil exporting nations in the region while potentially opening (or re-opening depending on your view) another oil exporting front. Currently, US policy prohibits any direct financial contact with Iran, including prohibition on purchasing Iranian oil, leaving it largely to the Chinese and Europeans with additional financial ties with Russia. The Democrats are expecting that the Iranian rise will keep the other Middle East regimes dependent on our financial and military backing maintaining favorable leverage for trade and oil prices.

Although, the rise of Iran as a power in the region and as an important oil exporter with increased influence, if not control of OPEC, we should expect the price of oil to continue to rise at unprecedented rates as Iran continues to exploit it for financial gain. The Iranian people who want real democracy? They will have to wait.

As for Iraq, it will a powerless pawn in the region unless it can gain control of the corruption and sectarian strife long enough to develop its real economic power in oil.

Third, the Democrats hope to have an immediate gain. Whether a withdrawal occurs or, on the long shot, Petraeus's strategy works, going into the 2008 presidential race framed by a peaceful Iraq and/or US withdrawal, the Democrats will claim that their efforts brought an end to the war or, at least, US involvement in Iraq. There is the very large possibility that Iraq will simply disintegrate into all out warfare with many regional actors financing one faction or the other. The Democrats will claim that the President's actions are the cause. In all ways, the Machiavillian manouvering and positioning would make the Medici's seem like kindergartners.

While all of this may seem somewhat logical and reasonable, there are immediate sacrifices. Not withstanding the probable slaughter and refugee issues as well as Iraqi independence being handed over to the Iranians, there can be no doubt that Al Qaida in Iraq and its compatriots will see these political actions, funding issues and effects on our military capability as reasons to increase their activities against our forces in order to maintain their appearance of victory over US forces. They will hope to hasten the US's departure so that the Iraqi government and its security forces are weak enough to allow them to consolidate their forces enough to stave off a major Shia offensive and maintain their hold in al Anbar. Certainly, a Shia or government offensive with major Sunni casualties would consolidate Al Qaida's popularity, not only in Iraq, but in the region with many Sunni as they will be seen as "defenders of the faithful".

Our military power as a negotiating chip will be largely mitigated. A positive in many minds who fear the apparent "militarization" of our foreign policy, our status as a super power and the tumult of a rapidly changing world.

We will hope that the last six years without a direct attack on our soil will continue, that our security measures are effective and we will return to treating terrorists as a police and intelligence issue wherein the deaths of our citizens, should it come, require only another manouver, another covert action, another day, month and year that al Qaida, Zawahiri and bin Laden will continue to exist while their myth grows and their followers in proportion.

Afghanistan? Oh, Afghanistan, that invisible, forgotten war. It will go the way of Iraq. Iraq war funding and Afghanistan war funding are the same appropriations bill. Afghanistan, where Teddy Kennedy announced it was a "quagmire" six weeks into the war and a few days prior to the fall of Kandahar. The Democrats did not want to be in Afghanistan either. They will work on accomodation with the Taliban next.

Those who died on 9/11, their families who lost so much and those who risked life and limb in Iraq and Afghanistanwill not have justice, will not be revenged and will not have the final acknowledgement that their sacrifice meant the destruction of a threat against their families and the future generations of the US, but will be simple stepping stones on the return path to detente politics. Nothing more, nothing less. Sacrificed for the presidential race in 2008. An ignoble end for such honored citizens.

The citizens of Iraq who have risked much more than the US and suffered a hundred times more painful death and destruction will have to hope for peace and watch many more die before they have it. Our casualties will continue as a "rear guard" action ensues. In the words of Senator Kerry over three decades ago, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Some would say, "ask General Pelosi."

The soldiers' reply, "We who are about to die, salute you!"

Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

Love/Hate Relationship With War (Rated: Mature)

I found this over at Blonde Sagacity: I Miss Iraq. I Miss My Gun. I Miss My War.

I've been home from Iraq for more than a year, long enough for my time there to become a memory best forgotten for those who worried every day that I was gone. I could see their relief when I returned. Life could continue, with futures not so uncertain. But in quiet moments, their relief brought me guilt. Maybe they assume I was as overjoyed to be home as they were to have me home. Maybe they assume if I could do it over, I never would have gone. And maybe I wouldn't have. But I miss Iraq. I miss the war. I miss war. And I have a very hard time understanding why.

I'm glad to be home, to have put away my uniforms, to wake up next to my wife each morning. I worry about my friends who are in Iraq now, and I wish they weren't. Often I hated being there, when the frustrations and lack of control over my life were complete and mind-bending. I questioned my role in the occupation and whether good could come of it. I wondered if it was worth dying or killing for. The suffering and ugliness I saw disgusted me. But war twists and shifts the landmarks by which we navigate our lives, casting light on darkened areas that for many people remain forever unexplored. And once those darkened spaces are lit, they become part of us. At a party several years ago, long before the Army, I listened to a friend who had served several years in the Marines tell a woman that if she carried a pistol for a day, just tucked in her waistband and out of sight, she would feel different. She would see the world differently, for better or worse. Guns empower. She disagreed and he shrugged. No use arguing the point; he was just offering a little piece of truth. He was right, of course. And that's just the beginning.

Which got me thinking as I read it about my own thoughts on the war and how often I think about it. How much it consumes me even when I try to do "other things". I wrote a comment at Ala's:

You know, about "I miss war", it was really strange but I almost couldn't read it at the same time I HAD to read it.

Kind of like how he misses war. It's crazy like that. I actually feel like I am just on the edge of that "junkie" feeling because I have to spend hours looking at the war and trying to analyze where we are and what is going on. even to the point of sleep deprevation sometimes.

I think I need a psychiatrist.

On the other hand, I know I am looking for that "tipping point" that says "its all over but the shouting". I don't know if I'll actually recognize it, but I can't seem to stop looking for it, even when I tell myself that could be years away.

A part of this is 9/11. I know that people are right about the effects of the images. I haven't looked since the last anniversary, even then I was more looking at people's stories, not the images. because it keeps cutting the wound over and over. Still, I feel like that isn't over until everything else is over. I think that is how people feel when their loved one dies from violent crime and, even when they bury them, there is no "closure". Even when they catch the bad guy, there is no "closure", just that big empty hole that will need something else to fill it up once this alleged culturaly denoted "closure" occurs because you have spent so much time being angry and searching for that closure, you have nothing else.

I wasn't there. I just watched it on my TV and it is still a big empty hole, not just in the ground, but in my mind and in my soul.

And it is worse because I think I should be doing something. Me. I am supposed to do something about it and I am not, or not enough or can't do what I think I should be doing.

Somedays, I wish the war would just fade away to nothing and we would all go back to our "normal" lives. LIke that "9/10" world everyone talks about. In the 9/10 world, I thought I knew where I was, who I was and where I was going. The 9/11 world is much more confusing and angry. I am lost somedays and depressed because it doesn't appear to be clearing. Where I thought I wanted to "go" with my life no longer holds the same appeal. I think I should be doing something else, but I don't know what.

Other days, I am so angry, I wish I could fly to where ever bin Laden or Zawahiri or any of those other assholes were and shoot them dead. Probably stomp and kick their dead and dying bodies. then I would toss them from a helicopter into the center of the biggest center of Salafist followers I could find so they would know my anger and how I feel about them.

Does that sound terrible?

Even wanting that, then I sit back and stew knowing that I could kill bin Laden and Zawahiri and it would still not be over. I know that their ideology will go on and on until we either attrit it to zero in a very long war (G_d, how did people live with the threat of Nukes from the USSR for so long or with the uncertainty of WWII?) or, in a fit of sincere madness, we just go Nagasaki on the entire region.

Still, I think, however it ends, when it ends, if I am still alive, I will have that empty place. I hate them. I hate this fucking war and I love it all the same because I want it to give me what I don't think I will ever get: closure.

And now I consider deleting this message in a purely open thread because it is too raw, maybe even crazy. But, like this guy in "I miss my war", I don't think I'm alone. At least, I hope not because, if I am, I am lost.

So, it stays.

I think it came on me, not just from reading that story, though it made me think about my own view of the war (not rather it is right or wrong or whether we are winning or losing, but how I react to it on a personal level and how it has changed me), but because every day, not only do I hear about this war, it's good and bad, it's ups and down like Schindler's List, but because I feel constantly assailed by hypocritic, condescending, smarmy mouth assholes who think that the only way you can support the war is to be some chest pounding, reich-wing, warmongering, viking that purely loves to pillage and rape. Because, of course, if you do not believe as they do, if you do not denounce this war on the some simplistic idealism of a clear "conscience", you are no more complicated or intelligent than a snail.

You're supposed to pretend nothing happened. You're supposed to pretend it doesn't matter. You're supposed to pretend that tomorrow will be a better day where no Wahabi, Salafist asshole wants to kill you, yours and those around you.

I'd like to say that I don't "pretend" to anything, but that is a lie, because I wrote something more on this post and then I took it down because I belong to an organization that I support through a related website and I would not have my raw thoughts on Republicans, Democrats or the great disinterested masses that only want the world to be quiet again, to reflect upon the organization or the people that we support. So I will pretend that I am not angry and that I will quietly go about what I have been doing, supporting our men and women in uniform until they all come home, however that goes.

But, deep down, I want to scream obscenities and kick people's asses.

Today, al Qaida announced impending victory in Iraq.

Today, Nancy Pelosi learned what it was like to be hated by everyone.

Today, thousands of Iraqis and Afghans will be cared for and protected by our men and women.

Today, the Taliban related al Qaida leader, Dadullah, announced that there will be no negotiating with the United States.

Today, the Democrats supplant the Republicans at the trough and continue to swill at the expense of our men and women.

Today, the war goes on.

Summary only...

The President's Fading Voice

The president appeared to be pleading, not leading. Where are the convictions of conscience, the soaring rhetoric, the broad vision and the dire warnings of failure? Did these go out the door with the departure of Michael Gerson, his best speechwriter?

The president can be persuasive in the content of his speeches and eloquent in his delivery. We saw a different man after 9/11 than we saw before, or see now. The loss of eloquence has given his political opponents new opportunities, not only to make his life miserable, but also to encourage the enemy in their perception of a divided nation. His weekly radio addresses are lifeless and delivered in a monotonous cadence, as if he wishes he were someplace else.

I imagine that he does. Wish he was some place else. War tends to do that after years and year.

Winston Churchill is dead.

Summary only...

Hanson on the "300"

Finally, some have suggested that "300" is juvenile in its black-and-white depiction - and glorification - of free Greeks versus imperious Persians. The film has actually been banned in Iran as hurtful American propaganda, as the theocracy suddenly is reclaiming its "infidel" ancient past.

But that good/bad contrast comes not from the director or Frank Miller, but is based on accounts from the Greeks themselves, who saw their own society as antithetical to the monarchy of imperial Persia.

Summary only...

Terrorists Use Kidnapped Children In Homicide Car Bombing and A Lesson From Fly Over Country

Two reports came up almost simultaneously that seem unrelated, but should be the next expectation in the terrorists' escalation of heinous war crimes.

Via Mudville Gazette, Iraq Slogger points out whatappears to be a positive story about Sunni Tribesmen fighting off would be kidnappers of a village child.

Armed tribesmen in the Eastern Husayba village (5 km east of Ramadi) in the Anbar Governorate managed to drive out a local insurgent group associated with the Al-Qaeda in Iraq organization from their village, while residents discovered a mass grave of 16 citizens killed by militants in the area, Sot Al-Iraq reported. The campaign started Friday after gunmen abducted a local boy named Yassir, prompting his mother to go out on the street screaming and urging the villagers to carry arms and find her only son. Dozens of men from the area armed with pistols, rifles and machine guns grouped and started searching the palm orchards surrounding their village while shouting tribal battle cries. They located and captured the insurgent cell of 11 men before sunset and released the kidnapped boy. The tribesmen reportedly handed over their prisoners to the Ramadi Police Directorate

The report was dated 03/18/07.

AFP reports that two children were used as cover in a Homicide car bombing.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.

The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.

We shouldn't be surprised. These are the same people that orchestrated the major homicide car bombing that killed over 37 children and wounded another 107 in 2004.

Barbero said the insurgents were "changing tactics", but the truth is, its a re-hashed makeover of the usual. For all the wailing and nashing of teeth regarding possible deaths of civilians caused by American forces (complaints of that have gone down considerably and in comparison to the terrorist actions), the terrorists continue to show a blatant disregard for innocent life, particularly the most innocent of all.

In another recent article highlighting wounded American soldiers, a terrorist sniper targeted and killed a young boy of 10 in order to take out the captain speaking to him:

For Capt. Edward Arntson, the worst wounds might be deeper than flesh. They’ve left some painful memories.

One began around noon on New Year’s Eve, while Arntson was leading a patrol east of Fallujah as commander of Able Company (3rd Batallion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment). He’d just stopped to talk to a young boy and his family about what they’d seen in the area.

"His house was right near one of my platoon’s observation posts," recalled Arntson, 26, who’d previously fought in Afghanistan with other soldiers from Fort Richardson.

"And right at the tail end of the conversation with the boy and his mother, as I turned to leave, he was shot through the chest — and the bullet passed through the boy and hit me in the arm."

Or the young boy who was shot in the face while his father went to provide refreshments for visiting "masked men" in the dead of night or the 4 year old boy who was tied to his father's leg and thrown into the river with his father's bullet ridden body to drown.

You may ask yourself, "Do they have no compassion?" Where is the concern for "innocents" in this strategy? Where is their humanity? The answer is: there is none.

The wailing of men and women over the broken remains of their children are but a line of dissonant harmony in their evil requiem. It is very likely that these children were kidnapped and, with the state of things in Iraq, they will have simply disappeared, never ransomed like the hundreds or thousands of children kidnapped and held to generate funds for the continuing insurgency; their fate unknown to their parents.

Yet, like the Chlorine Bomb and even our own 9/11 where passengers now know that a hijacked plane is very likely a certain death, such tactics may stir fear, but often instill resolution, determination and outright anger. They are losing strategies because people know the odds and they will play them. The odds for kidnapped children to be horribly killed rather than ransomed have gone up considerably. That is after the very likely existing death for all those whose families could not pay the ransom in the first place. Knowing such odds will likely increase the opposition to the insurgents, not win them "hearts and minds".

Those are but a few stories of the depravity of terrorists who blatantly tell us that they "love death more than you love life".

The last questions we should ask, considering the Beslan attacks and the deaths of children on the planes on 9/11, do you believe when we leave Iraq that such things will simply disappear? Do you think that such blatant disregard for human life, particularly the most innocent and vulnerable among us will not follow us here?
********************

Personal Experience in Dealing with Packs of Wild Animals

Here in fly over country, my family once owned a farm where my grandfather raised herefords and my cousins ran sheep. It's a fact that coyotes, like any creature of nature, will kill the young or the weak from a herd of sheep. Generally, this is to feed the pack. If the pack of coyotes is successful in culling out the young and the weak for consumption, they will return again and again until they are run off or killed. When this happens, farmers will band together, sometimes posting a night shephard on the herd, setting traps or driving the herd into enlcosed pens or outbuildings in their attempts to keep the pack from destroying too much livestock.

However, when a pack of coyotes or wild dogs go on a killing spree and indiscriminately kill a number of the herd simply for the pleasure of killing, every farmer knows the danger to his own flock has tripled and financial ruin is around the corner. In these cases, the farmers and local ranchers will mount concentrated night patrols and hunting parties to hunt down and kill every last wild dog or coyote. It is commonly accepted that, once a wild dog or coyote has started killing indiscriminately, none can be spared because they will form a new pack and continue to kill.

In the movie, Silence of the Lambs, Hannible taunts Clarice with her memory of the lambs terrorized sounds as the coyotes attacked them. In real life, at the age of ten, I was on my grandfather's farm during "lambing season". It was a particularly warm spring and the pregnant ewes were allowed to "lamb" in the field. During colder springs or difficult times, they would be herded into the "lambing barn" to be protected from the elements or creatures.

This night, we were woken up by the sounds of the sheep baaing fearfully as they ran in herds towards the safety of the barn. Within in minutes, we were up and dressed trying to herd the ewes who were about to "drop" into the lambing barn while my grandfather, father, uncles and cousins from a nearby farm packed into 4x4 Blazers with rifles and shot guns. I still remember the coyotes calling to each other across the rolling hills and the terrified sheep baaing as the headlights flashed over the fields. Powerful spotlights picked out the coyotes as the men yelled to each other, calling out the position of the coyotes. Shots rang out as the coyotes were picked off and finally silenced.

We lost one ewe and three lambs that night before the coyotes were killed. If the coyotes hadn't been stopped, they would have simply torn through our flock without regard and with no natural compunction for consumption then moved on to the next flock and the next.

That should be our lesson with these packs of wild animals. Any who can deliberately target children for no other reason than to circumvent natural human reaction and cause the most destruction and death possible, will not reform, cannot be negotiated with and cannot be allowed to roam the countryside looking for the next and the next.

This simple understanding may actually be the reason why so many young men from rural areas volunteer, for all the media's continued representation of "young, rural rubes" joining the military for financial reasons or for "escape". They understand the nature of rabid animals and the only way to defend against them is to kill everyone of them or watch your flock die en masse.

Summary only...

Anti-War Protests: Countered

My feelings on the subject:





Enough said.

Summary only...

11 Point Plan for Victory in Iraq

From Pat Dollard the official 11 Point Plan for Victory in Iraq. Couple of items I have posted about in the past as something I would do. One of which I talked about over a year ago re: embedding with police and military right in the citie, is already happening for at least the last year.

Here are points I've noted previously on this blog.

6. A massive assault is shortly due to be launched on Ramadi, the capital of Al Qaeda, and the remnants of the Sunni Insurgency, in Iraq. Ramadi has degenerated to a sort of post-modern trench warfare, Marines and Soldiers locked away in a variety of new urban outposts, while all the schools have finally been closed and it is nigh on impossible for the average citizen to conduct his daily life. The deadlock must be broken, and Al Qaeda must finally be ejected.

You may wonder why you would announce that you were going to assault Ramadi Fallujah style. Lots of good reasons:

A) The regular citizens will be less willing to allow enemy forces to stay and may demand/force them to abandon some of their positions in town. It's self preservation. Like the propaganda about Ghengis Khan and the 40,000 heads outside the city gates, the Al Qaida propaganda from Fallujah is a two edged sword. It might have provoked many to join the insurgents/ Al Qaida and it might have made some generals and politicians leery of the "bad publicity" about alleged civillian deaths from US hands. However, the broadcast and images also reminded many that the US can bring unmitigated destruction that is less than discerning.

All in all, any citizen in a city that is about to be assaulted will want to: a) make the insurgents leave; b) join the insurgents; or c) leave the city in self defense. Either way, it has a way of sorting out the "hardliners" and resolving it once and for all.

B) Send the insurgents running. Announcing the oncoming Fallujah attack sent a number of high profile forces running from their redoubt. When they run, they are less protected. When they are less protected, they are easier to find and kill.

C) The early announcement also provides opportunity for indecision and infighting among the enemy. It may shake up the leadership. Some may stay and some may go. It may cut the forces that actually have to be dealt with inside Ramadi in half.

D) The enemy may send "re-enforcements" from other areas to fight the "big battle". Again, they move, we find them. Again, they come, the people leave, it makes it easier to pick the "bad guys" out.

9. Immediate, highly visible Infrastructure improvement first focused on the peaceful and cooperative areas of Mosul, Amara and Karbala. The idea is to make other areas around jealous of the rapidly modernizing cities, in order to incent them to tow the line of cooperation with the new Iraqi Government.

Such improvements will include, but are not limited to dozens of new bridges being built to accommodate the literally trebling of auto ownership in Iraq since the liberation; the building of many new hospitals to modern standards of medicine ( Ever been to an Iraqi hospital? Just stay home where it’s cleaner and send someone to fetch some drugs ); a massive campaign for fresh American private sector investment, and a raising of all school standards, with a centerpiece of several new universities being built.

The big discussions have been about how much money it costs to do security compared to how little is being spent on reconstruction. Here's the truth, they should have spent it about equally if not more so on the reconstruction. Highly visible reconstruction. For too long the insurgency has been governing the advancement and economics of Iraq. While we were busy letting them do that, it looked like Iraq was crumbling regardless of how many dams, hydro-electric plants, electric grids, schools, etc were being built.

Most of "what the insurgents stop" is BS anyway, but unless an Iraqi (or an American for that matter) can see it on their way to work or on their TV screen everytime they glance at it, it doesn't exist. It has to be nationally and internationally visible.

Second, it has to mean something to the people and have an immediate impact. Many discussions have gone on about the electricity problem in Iraq. Depending on who you listen to, the electrical output has collapsed and insurgents routinely damage the conduits or the infrastructure was already badly damaged, is being repaired as quickly as possible but cannot meet the demands. Both are likely true, but there are very few, if any, things that can be done that can have a huge and immediate effect. It takes years to build dams and plants, it takes years to develop the kind of output to meet the gigantic growth in demand.

Hospitals, on the other hand, are immediate, huge and needed. As Dollard notes, Iraqis only go to the hospital if they have internal bleeding, need major surgery or are comatose. Those places are death traps. Mostly because they are badly funded, in horrible structural shape, very old equipment and understaffed. But, if the hospital (not clinic) is big enough, it can be seen from everywhere and, since it serves the needs of the people immediately, it will be worth more for them to protect it. Even the insurgents have laid off attacking hospitals after the 2005 attack on the Children's Hospital. Very bad publicity.

I also recomment big government buildings and steel girded high-rises.

Yes, it makes them targets for the insurgents, but it also makes them important to the people. Also, as bizarre as it might sound, it is cheaper to rebuild anything that the insurgents knockdown than to keep paying $5bil/day for "war and security). It's a version of the "broken windows theory". Whatever is destroyed, rebuild it bigger and faster. That is how you defeat the insurgent.

You must make the insurgent irrelevant to the future of Iraq. He can fight, but he can't win.

10. Electoral Reform: The old system of national parties selecting candidates for positions was believed to have unfairly tipped the balance in favor of the Shiites and led to too many Pro-Iranian, Pro-Achmedinejad candidates ( like the nutbag terrorist Al Sadr ) receiving too many seats in the parliament. A new system of local candidates simply stepping forward and adding their name to the ballot will instead prevail.

Many have thought this was needed, but I am not sure how this is going to happen. The Iraqis have their constitution. Petraeus may try to conjole, but he certainly cannot force the national assembly to recreate the electoral process. Maybe this is in reference to local politics?

Nationally, this would have been nice if the areas had been formed into districts and individuals run for individual seats instead of this bizarre parliamentary process that simply allows the party that wins X% to fill Y seats. Some of which have no connection to or reference to the districts.

We'll see what they mean by this.

Very interesting indeed.

Summary only...

Venomous Snakes of the United States: Copperheads

The past few days, leading up to the Feb 16 debate on the Iraq war in congress has been an eye opener. The Democrat wing of congress has been planning to play both ends in order to appear to be doing something while actually not committing to any thing. I have noted they want to maintain their base "anti-war" crowd as well as chip away at the center, "we were for the war, but now it's too costly and confusing, but we don't want to lose" that cost them the last Presidential election. They are desperately trying to craft their message towards the 2008 Presidential Elections, while selling out the Troops, the Iraqi people and our allies in the region.

It's not just the Democrats. There are some Republicans that are willing to sell their (R) and their valueless souls in order to maintain their split constituency back in the home state.

There are no principles on Capitol Hill, just manouvering while our soldiers continue the mission and children are murdered by one group or the other.

The press paints all as "sectarian" fighting, trying to redefine the fight as a "civil war" while the President gives uninspiring speeches on why we should continue to the fight.

Is it any surprise the American people are thinking that this is no longer a war they should be involved in or worried about?

The entire time, very few even mention that Al Qaida is in Iraq and active.

The entire Capitol Hill is a giant snake pit of copperheads willing to sell out everyone for political position.

Rep. Murtha (D) Pennsylvania recently outlined the Democrat strategy: "slow bleed". Now that the Dems have control of the major military funding committees, they hope to limit available forces and funding to the military in Iraq by introducing individual bills that try to enforce extended times between deployment for units and individuals, try to limit the number of times a unit or individual can be deployed and limit the period of deployment.


All of which is to force the military to make do with fewer and fewer troops on the field who would still need to perform the same jobs, still be in the same danger, but would not have the amount of force protection to insure their safety or perform the mission. There is only one outcome to this strategy and it is a forced "redeployment" of troops. Lets call it what it is, a forced retreat that will mean more death and injury for our troops as it is slowly strangled by the snakes in congress.

It is not hard to understand how that will occur. It is a fallacy to believe that this "reduction" will force a depletion in missions thus keeping our troops out of harms way. To believe that is to completely misunderstand or purposefully ignore the types of missions that would still have to occur in order to supply our forces that will still be in theater as well as support the Iraqi Army and police, even if they were in a position to stand up in the manner and number necessary to do the job our forces have been doing.

Our troops are out routinely sweeping the roads for IEDs, watching for ambushes and doing reconnaisance. None of which goes away because we have "reduced" the number of troops in the field. We will still have forces in theater who will still need food, clothing, medical supplies and many other needs. Most of that comes via the roads and convoys. All of which are made safer by the aggressive patrolling of our forces who find and dismantle over 50% of all IEDs. Forces, who by their presence in the area, keep the heads low of any enemy who want to plant more IEDs.


If they are stuck on their bases because they do not have appropriate force protection, who will insure that they are not cut off from supplies or from back up by quick reaction forces by IED laden roads, ambushes and other tactics that would quickly leave individual bases vulnerable and thus huge numbers of our forces?

Worse yet, these units know they will need to protect their perimeters and have projected force into the area in order to defend themselves and keep from being attacked or over run by enemy forces, enemy forces organized and led by the continuing presence of Al Qaida that would like nothing better than to see our forces confined to bases where they can be attacked with impunity (as seen from the attack on Abu Graihb Prison).

It is only by continuing presence patrols that these enemy forces cannot gather enough men or in one place without being found and quickly eliminated. If our men can no longer leave the wire, they will not be able to maintain this security and will be vulnerable to mass attacks that will result in mass casualties.

At the same time, they denounce the Iraq forces as incapable of standing on their own, demand that they stand on their own and, simultaneously, imagine that these Iraqi forces will be able to maintain such security as to not put our men in jeopardy.

The entire purpose is to make the military's position untenable in Iraq and force the generals to abandon the strategies that protect them, protect the main population of Iraq and maintain its tenuous hold on democracy and unity. The military would then be forced to report that it was unable to continue the mission and the President would be forced to withdraw our forces or see a total disaster take place in the face of base bound forces.

In such a way, they hope to force retreat, but not call it retreat. They will simultaneous claim to be protecting our forces and saving the military while making the same vulnerable in the extreme with the very likelihood of increased casualties from IEDs, ambushes and straight on attacks.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, tasked by Democrats to direct the next step, says his approach "stops the surge, for all intents and purposes," and would "force a redeployment — not by taking money away, by redirecting money."

News to Rep Murtha, that is the same thing. If you redirect it from the troops in Iraq, then they do not have it. That is taking it away. Only a fool would be fooled by such double speak. The Democrats have a habit of likening Iraq to Vietnam, but this is the closest "Vietnamization" of Iraq you can get. That is exactly what was done to force the troops home: redirecting the money to pay for flights home instead of ammunition and deployment of reserve or replacement troops.

Former Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas, said Democrats have made a "very clear point" this week by putting the House on record against Bush's troop buildup and now must be careful not to overplay their hand by seeking to cut off funding or limit deployments right away.

"They don't want to be a scapegoat for the Bush administration's failures," Frost said. "This is Bush's war, and there should be no confusion about who's war it is, and Democrats should not set themselves up to have that done to them."

As if this entire war is about the twisted play of politics on the hill. It is only thus because the Democrats made it so.

They are not principled enough to say that they will not vote for the next war budget and demand retreat. Instead, they want to be like snakes crawling through the grass, striking from behind and then crawling away so they can pretend they are not responsible for the outcome, whether that is the death and injury of our troops, the death that will surely come en masse for the Iraqi people and the disintegration of Iraq and the region.

The venomous calculation that it takes to pretend to care about our troops, to care about the Iraqi people or be serious about national defense while zig-zagging through the morass of public opinion in order to establish a tenable position for the previous election and the next, is, frankly, astounding.

Make no mistake, there will be bleeding, but it won't be the figurative "slow" bleed of congressional support, funding or reduction of available forces. It will be the massive bleeding of our troops blood, the blood of the Iraqi people and the blood of many other people in the Middle East as our "slow bleed" leaves them vulnerable to the expansion of unchecked Islamist terrorists back into the surrounding countries. Many of which have been our allies providing intelligence to track down terrorist, stopping terrorists within their own countries and insuring the flow of vital resources to this nation, no only to enable continuing military activity in Iraq AND Afghanistan, but to insure our economy remains stable and even flourishes.

The Copperheads aren't just Democrats. On February 14, Congressman Ric Keller (R - florida) gave a speech in which he likened Iraq to a neighbor that is unwilling to mow his own grass:

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine that you have a next door neighbor who refuses to mow his lawn, and the weeds are up to his waist. You mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you, and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots at you.

Under these circumstances, would you keep mowing his lawn forever? Would you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn? Or, would you say to him, you better start mowing your own lawn or there’s going to be serious consequences for you?

This is what passes for intelligent thought on the subject. Iraq is not our neighbors "lawn" that needs to be "mowed". It is, in fact, a volatile country that is not simply presenting "unsightly tall grass" and driving down the value of neighboring property. That is the most you can expect from your neighbor's "unmowed grass".

From an uncontrolled and disintegrating Iraq you can expect that Iraqis will die en masse from the creatures crawling around it's "unmowed lawn". You can expect that Iraq's neighbors will be killed and made unstable from this "unmowed lawn". You can expect that these creatures will be building nests from which they can strike you and your neighbors, quite likely killing you; killing the people of the United States and any number of people around the world.

For this ignorant analogy alone, Representative Keller should be driven from Congress like the copperhead that he is.

Rep. Murtha recently stated that, when we leave, the Shia will drive al Qaida from Iraq. He leaves out the details of how that will play out. The Shia, long persecuted in Iraq and the victims of much of the violence from Al Qaida dominated attacks, will not only drive Al Qaida from Iraq, but many, many Sunni who are not involved and not responsible. There will be death on a scale not yet seen in Iraq for all the lamentations of the current conflict and its toll. While many scream of genocide regarding Darfur and lament the inaction of Rawanda and the delays of Kosovo, true genocide will again take place in Iraq. This time it will be the Sunni who pay, regardless of their affiliations or lack of.

But, not before the conflict expands as Sunni Arabs around the Middle East run to the rescue of their persecuted co-religionists. The battles will be repugnant in their barbarity. We cannot pretend we do not know as we have seen the results over and over again in the slaughter houses of Fallujah and the bullet riddled bodies in the streets of Baghdad. No one involved in this battle will ask who is "innocent" or try to stem the blood shed. They will truly force every person within the nation to take sides as the battle escalates and the barbarity goes beyond cruel.

Those that go to join the Sunni in defending themselves will be quickly swept up into al Qaida organized brigades and affiliations. For all the moaning about the number of terrorists "created" by our presence in Iraq, the number that will be easily recruited and assimilated into these organizations will be beyond comprehension.

Finally, when Rep. Murtha's one truly cognitive point comes true, where will the millions of refugees go? Where will these tens of thousands of more Al Qaida trained, financed and indoctrinated fighters go?

The refugees will go into neighboring countries where they will become an overwhelming economic and security burden on many of our allies such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is also unlikely that, once tasting blood, brutality and embibing the religious ferment of al Qaida that these fighters will simply return back to their countries with no further danger. They will be rightly able to claim that the United States abandoned the innocent Sunni, along with the relative few that are culpable, to be murdered and driven out by vengeful Shia and allowed Iran to dominate the region.

There will be no need for conspiracy theories on the Arab street. It will play out for them on Al Jazeera in graphic detail. If we are worried about the "Arab street" now, it takes little to imagine the kind of hatred that will be generated after the oncoming slaughter and political instability.

By this and the foment sown by the al Qaida indoctrination, there is little stretch of the imagination to understand that the backlash will reach back into the United States. They will be even more driven to attack the US, its allies and vital resources that could result in death and injury to our citizens as well as a collapsing economy from the cost of energy resources to the restriction of all types of goods that traverse the waterways of the region.

To simply buy Rep. Murtha's pronouncement as an effective strategy is beyond stupendously ignorant.

Finally, our allies as well as our enemies will be shown that we cannot be trusted when we give them our hands in friendship, pledging defense. We will have shown, once again, that we weigh the cost to benefit ratio heavily in favor of our own political posturing while the lives and the freedom of our allies are considered less than a thistle on the wind.

When we abandon Iraq, it will not be simply ceding control to the Iranians or ceding territory to terrorist organizations, but we will have ceded a valuable position that has allowed us to offer protection to nascent democracies in Eastern Europe and break away republics from Russia.

What will we offer to them? A handshake on one hand and a copperhead in the other?

To paraphrase Congressman Keller, our neighbor's grass does need to be mowed, but our neighbor is not 9000 miles away. Our neighbor is in Washington DC and his overgrown lawn of crab grass and weeds has been hiding a snake pit full of copperheads. They need to be driven into the open so their venomous fangs can be seen as the danger they represent.

Because everybody knows, Copperheads Kill.




-Out with the copperheads! The only acceptable outcome is Victory over the Islamists!



Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...