Pure Genius in Print

Here

Obama's Change on Iraq

President Obama spoke about the Iraq War recently. There were a few things that caught my eye because of their contrasts to the rhetoric used by the president and the president's party since 2003.

"To understand where we need to go in Iraq, it is important for the American people to understand where we now stand. Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq’s Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces has improved, and Iraq’s leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January’s provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process"

First, this sounds like something President Bush would have said - and been ridiculed for. In fact, it sounds quite similar to what General Petraeus told Congress about the surge two years ago. Statements which of course got him summarily dismissed and ridiculed.

It also stands out in stark contrast to what Candidate Obama said in February 2007,

"We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Another point from the president's speech that stands in contrast to the last 8 years is when President Obama called General Petraeus one of "our finest Generals" - forgetting, obviously, Petraeus's real name - "General Betray Us"

Throwing a bone to all the "we want a timetable" screechers of the last eight years, the president said he came "to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." Which was apparently another example of his forgetfulness - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told us "This War is Lost" two years ago.

President Obama also had many nice things to say about the military in his speech,

"And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."

Which must be news to these guys; I doubt they think our soldiers achieved much in Iraq. But who can blame them, since neither did our president during his run for the White House?

The truth is, President Obama is simply following the trajectory set up and made possible by President Bush's last two years in office. There is nothing new or revelatory in this speech or in Obama's policy. The only thing strikingly new and different about it is the change in tone and tenor in the way the president - and by extension, the president's party - talks about Iraq.

After years of doom and gloom, we suddenly see the bright side.

Iraqi Reporter Throws Shoe at President

Perhaps you've heard the story.

For context, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, from the archives:

It was dark when they brought a group of people (prisoners) in front of the vehicle. The drivers got out of our vehicles and turned on the headlights," he said.

Some prisoners tried to grab an automatic rifle from a guard, but failed because "we were so weak," he said.

Soldiers then opened fire. "I ran and fell into a ditch. It was full of bodies. I fell on a body. It was still alive. It was his last breath," said the witness. "It was really unbelievable, the number of people being killed like this."

Slightly wounded, he stripped off his clothes, thinking he was more likely to blend into the color of the sand if he were naked, the witness said. He then began running again.

"As I was running, I saw many pits, I saw many mounds, and I saw lots of people who had been shot," he said. "The desert was full of mounds that had people buried underneath."

The witness said he took refuge with Kurds living nearby, then traveled north. For the next 15 years he lived in hiding, moving frequently, until Saddam's ouster.

A Kurdish witness — Mutalib Mohammed Salman, 78 — told the court that his wife and 32 relatives disappeared in 1988 after troops overran his village in northern Iraq.

Salman said his wife's body and the remains of two other relatives were found in a mass grave after Saddam's regime was toppled in 2003.

"It wasn't America in a quagmire in Iraq. It was Al Qaeda."

From Orson Scott Card, a truly interesting editorial.

Dear Mr Obama

Mark Daily

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

War Protesting, War Undermining

Another gem from Orson Scott Card:

"Lincoln, facing probably defeat in the election, called together his cabinet and handed them a sealed memorandum, which he directed that they should sign as witnesses, so that when, after the election, the document was opened, they would know that this was what Lincoln had written at that time.

...because McClellan was running with the pledge to let the South have its victory in the Civil War after all, the Confederacy based all its hopes on prolonging the war long enough for McClellan to become president."

"This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probably [sic] that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so cooperate with the Government President elect, as to save the Union between the Election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards."



Card argues here that enemies of the United States listen to public opinion and presidential candidates and adjust war strategy accordingly - namely, they try to hold out long enough for the American public, and by extension American politicians, to tire of the effort and quit. What the Democratic Party has done the last five years is undermine the war effort. Which shouldn't be surprising, since that's the express purpose of their protests and non-binding resolutions and campaign stump speeches. They want to leave Iraq, so of course those groups fighting for control of that country need only wait long enough for US policy to change with the new prevailing winds.

I've written on this topic a few times:

'Jane's Back: The Effect of War Protests'
'Thanks For The Support, Dad'
'Render Them Hostile to Bush'
'Speak Up And Speak Out: The Portland Protest March'

Nancy Pelosi Already Knows

It looks like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is up to her old tricks again.

At this time last year she had "scheduling conflicts" when General Petraeus went to Washington to meet with the US House of Representatives and provide them with classified information and expert analysis of the situation in Iraq. Ms. Pelosi's spokesmen said that she just forgot about the meeting and didn't realize she had the conflict until that very morning. So I wondered if we should start up a collection fund so she could get a pda or blackberry or something. It just seemed like a pretty big deal to miss out on classified information from a four star general, especially at a time when Congress was debating including a withdrawal timeline in a war funding bill. Luckily I had an astute commenter point out that the Speaker probably already knew what the general was going to say, so there was no reason to grace him with her presence.

Well, now General Petraeus is scheduled to visit Congress again. Just like my commenter noted last year, Nancy Pelosi has already made up her mind as to what she wants the general to say:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

It's Official: Iraq Showing Signs of Progress

If NPR is reporting it, it must be true. The surge created a much greater sense of security which is allowing life to resume. People are moving back in, shops are opening, and Iraqi citizens and security forces are now invested in success.

We Are Not Going To Baby-Sit A Civil War

What's the difference?

What's the difference between a civil war fought over old colonial disputes that caused the brutal deaths of 800,000 people in 100 days- just over 11% of the country's population?

What's the difference between an ongoing civil war fought over religious differences that has so far caused the deaths of 420,000 people?

What's the difference between those two civil wars and another war fought for basically the same reasons?

The US has been and continues to be vilified for doing nothing as genocide brutally took the lives of over a million people in Rwanda and Sudan. How could the freest and richest nation in the world stand idly by while such atrocities were occuring? What happened to the "city on a hill", the beacon of virtue that America proposes to be?

Well, now America could be faced with the same situation. As Congress continues to rush towards a pre-emptive withdrawal from Iraq, the elephant in the room is the very likely scenario of Iraq descending into Rwanda-like genocide. Surely America won't stand idly by and allow this to happen again?

Well, there are at least two presidential candidates that will. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have staked their campaign wagon to a "leave Iraq no matter what" policy- even if that results in the death of countless Iraqis. As Senator Clinton stated, "I'm sorry, it's over. We are not going to baby sit a civil war."

What's the difference between Rwanda, Sudan and Iraq?

Politics.

Correspondence From Sen. Larry Craig

Dear Cameron:

Because of your previous contact regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, I would like to take a moment to share a brief update on the current debate in the Senate.

The Senate is now in its second week of debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This legislation authorizes funding, policy changes, and other activities for our military for the coming fiscal next year. While many important military and defense needs have been and will be discussed, the war in Iraq has become the main focus of debate. As you well know, this war has been a very contentious issue in America over the past few years, and there are people on both sides of the issue who feel very strongly about our presence in Iraq. This week we will be debating a number of amendments to this bill, including an amendment calling for more time to allow the troop our increase to assist in stabilizing the country, which I will support. I am anticipating a very open and possibly heated debate on this issue, and I can assure you that I will be engaged in that debate.

Throughout the upcoming debate, I will be maintaining a journal of floor activity on this bill to help keep Idahoans informed. You will find this journal on my website by following this link: http://craig.senate.gov/journal_dod.cfm.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. As soon as the Senate comes to a resolution on this bill, I will send you a full summary of our actions.

Sincerely,

LARRY E. CRAIG
United States Senator

Here's What Nancy Pelosi Missed

After meeting with both houses of Congress, with one notable exception, General Petraeus then gave a public briefing to the media. He said it was similar to what he told Congress, just without the classified info he gave in that meeting- information that Speaker Pelosi missed out on.

Here is a rundown of the pertinent points:

WHO IS THE PROBLEM?

-Al Queda

Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq

-Extreme Militias

There can be no sustainable outcome if militia death squads are allowed to lie low during the surge only to resurface later and resume killing and intimidation

-Sunni Insurgents

while we continue to battle a number of such groups, we are seeing some others joining Sunni Arab tribes in turning against al Qaeda Iraq and helping transform Anbar province and other areas from being assessed as lost as little as six months ago to being relatively heartening. We will continue to engage with Sunni tribal sheikhs and former insurgent leaders to support the newfound opposition of some to al Qaeda, ensuring that their fighters join legitimate Iraqi security force elements to become part of the fight against extremists, just as we reach out to moderate members of all sects and ethnic groups to try to drive a wedge between the irreconcilables and the reconcilables, and help the latter become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

WHAT OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT?

-It's Brand New

It is in fact important to recall that the government of Prime Minister Maliki is Iraq's fourth government in as many years.

-Unity Problems

it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation.

-It Needs Time

The focus of Multinational Force Iraq is, of course, on working with our Iraqi counterparts to help improve security for the people of Iraq in order to give Iraqi leaders the time and space they need to come to grips with the tough political issues that must be resolved.

HOW'S THE SURGE GOING?

-Good, Though We Just Got Started

We are still in the relatively early stages of our new effort, about two months into it, with three of five Army surge brigades and two additional Marine battalions on the ground, and the remainder of the additional combat forces scheduled to be operating in their areas by mid-June.

Baghdad is the main effort, and we continue to establish joint security stations and combat outposts in the city and in the belts around it. The presence of coalition and Iraqi forces and increased operational tempo, especially in areas where until recently we had no sustained presence, have begun to produce results. Most significantly, Iraqi and coalition forces have helped to bring about a substantial reduction in the rate of sectarian murders each month from January until now in Baghdad, a reduction of about two-thirds. There have also been increases in weapons caches seized and the number of actionable tips received.

In the Ramadi area, for example, U.S. and Iraqi forces have found nearly as many caches in the first four months of this year as they found in all of last year
Beyond this, we are seeing a revival of markets, renewed commerce, the return of some displaced families and the slow resumption of services, though I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and I again note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.

-Fighting, And Casualties, Increase As We Reenter Areas We Withdrew From In The Past

Our achievements have not come without sacrifice. Our increase in operational tempo, location of our forces in the populations they are securing and conduct of operations in areas where we previously had no presence, as well as the enemy's greater use of certain types of explosive devices, have led to an increase in our losses. Our Iraqi partners have sacrificed heavily as well, with losses generally two to three times ours or even more.

-It's Hard When All That's Reported Are The Car Bombs

As I mentioned, we generally in many areas -- not all, but in many areas -- have a sense of sort of incremental progress. Again, that is not transmitted at all. Of course it will never break through the noise and the understandable coverage given to it in the press of a sensational attack that kills many Iraqis.

You know, all of this is actually so foreign, I think, in the mind of most people who see the news and of course do see that day's explosion or something like that. And actually there is a city of seven million in which life goes on, and again, citizens are determined to carry on with their life.

ARE YOU SURE AL QUEDA IS THERE?

-Yes, Absolutely

It is clearly the element in Iraq that conducts the sensational attacks, these attacks that, as I mentioned, cause not just horrific physical damage -- and which, by the way, have been increasingly indiscriminate. Secretary Gates noted the other day that al Qaeda has declared war on all Iraqis, and I think that that is an accurate statement. They have killed and wounded and maimed countless Iraqi civilians in addition to, certainly, coalition and Iraqi security forces, and they have done that, again, without regard to ethnosectarian identity.

That significance of al Qaeda in the conduct of the sensational attacks, the huge car bomb attacks against which we have been hardening markets, hardening neighborhoods, trying to limit movement and so forth -- those attacks, again, are of extraordinary significance because they can literally drown out anything else that might be happening
So this is a -- you know, it is a very significant enemy. I think it is probably public enemy number one.

...Typically, in fact, still we believe that, oh, 80 to 90 percent of the suicide attacks are carried out by foreigners.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE?

-Iraqis Die

My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced and not to be doing what it is that they are doing right now.

What Diplomacy Means to Speaker Pelosi

Someone needs to get Speaker Pelosi a PDA. The ones equipped with the appointment reminder alerts.

Or maybe she just needs a reminder of who our enemies are.

Remember how Speaker Pelosi went to Syria recently, and was roundly criticized for doing so? The criticism revolved around her playing president and changing our national foreign policy. Even publications that basically agreed with her intent nonetheless realized her actions were a grave mistake. The NY Times agreed with Ms. Pelosi's view that the US needs to open dialogue with Syria, despite that country's elbow-deep involvement in worldwide terrorism, assassinations in Lebanon, and supplying the very IED's that are killing soldiers and citizens in Iraq. The idea is that even though Syria is nominally an enemy to the United States, we should still meet with them.

Now juxtapose that with what occurred in Congress this week. Congressional leaders succeeded in passing an Iraq war funding bill that also called for troop withdrawal by October, perhaps sooner. It was a divisive debate, and had a razor thin margin of victory.

The administration opposes the bill, and the president has vowed to veto it. The four star general overwhelmingly approved by the Senate to oversee military operations in Iraq opposes it as well. In fact, General Petraeus envisions a lengthy stay in Iraq.

General Petraeus travelled back from Iraq this week to visit the Congress and update them on the status of the "surge" policy enacted in January. Listening to the experts would seem to be a good idea, wouldn't it? The Senate apparently agreed and scheduled the meeting. But it seems that under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi the House of Representatives initially declined to accept the general's offer of expert analysis. When some in Congress protested, leadership changed direction and set up the meeting.

What happened next is why someone ought to start up a collection or something so that Speaker Pelosi can get herself a PDA. According to CNN,

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNN the Speaker realized "first thing (Tuesday) morning" she had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the all-House members briefing Wednesday

See, if only she had a PDA she could have known that she had a conflict when she set up the meeting in the first place. I hear they even make cell phones with scheduling capabilities too. Maybe she should get one of those.

"Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami" wasn't sure what it was exactly that took precedent over meeting with the four star general, but apparently another "Democratic aide with knowledge of her schedule" was able to tell CNN in another story that,

Anticipating a close vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi skipped Wednesday's briefing with Petraeus to lobby for passage

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, that's why. She couldn't attend the meeting she set up with the commander of US forces in Iraq because she was lobbying members of Congress to vote against his recommendations.

Is it possible that Ms. Pelosi doesn't really need a high tech scheduler after all? Could it be that she simply couldn't be bothered with a face to face meeting with General Petraeus because she had her own agenda to further? Obviously she doesn't agree with what the General is doing in Iraq, so what's the point in even discussing it with him?

Except that she just flew halfway across the globe to meet face to face with a man that is doing things in Iraq that she presumably disagrees with. Things like blowing up our soldiers and killing innocent civilians. She maintains that we should have normal, open relations with men like him, men that are enemies to our country. But if that man is a US general who just flew halfway across the globe to meet with her, apparently open relations aren't needed.

One Last Time for Geoffrey

I'm not sure it's worth it to continue this, but in order to leave a record for posterity, I will revisit my experience in Geoffrey-land.

In his post, "Pathetic Gathering of Pseudo-Patriots" and in the comments that followed, Geoffrey called into question and otherwise ridiculed a group of counter protesters that call themselves Gathering of Eagles. When faced with the various facts that I presented, rather than debunk, dispute, engage or even aknowledge them, Geoffrey retreated to his I Hate Republicans cacoon.

In response to my blog post on the encounter, he proclaims that it is I that have ignored facts. Of course, the facts he offers have nothing whatever to do with the Gathering of Eagles. They are simply his excuses for his continuing hatred of Republicans.

Now, just who are the Gathering of Eagles? According to their website, they are:

We are wholly and forever committed to our brothers and sisters in uniform. As veterans, we understand their incredible and noble sacrifices, made of their own accord for a nation they love more than life itself. As family members, we stand by them, and as Americans, we thank God for them.

We believe that the war memorials are sacred ground; as such, we will not allow them to be desecrated, used as props for political statements, or treated with anything less than the solemn and heartfelt respect they–and the heroes they honor–deserve.

Then there is the blogger Indepundit who was at the protest and mingled with both sides. He took pictures and wrote a commentary on the Gathering of Eagles group.

In his latest comment on my last blog post on the topic, Geoffrey asserts that he has not belittled anyone. Let's review the original post in question so we can verify his claim.

His first sentence is not too promising:

I am going to belittle a group with whom I disagree.

Geoffrey keeps his promise by following up with these gems:

a bunch of out-of-shape, military-wannabes pretending to be a part of something that would destroy them if they actually were there

chest-bearing, pseudo-macho, pseudo-patriotic nonsense spewers

These people are the very embodiment of pathetic

And, of course, the title of the post is "Gathering of Pathetic Pseudo-Patriots".

Someone, somewhere, perhaps even in Geoffrey-land, has got to admit that those statements amount to belittling. Since the Eagles are comprised of many veterans, Geoffrey therefore has belittled veterans. That's the truth. Period.

Now, on to my "ignoring the facts" assertion that has him so flustered. In his original post, Geoffrey posed the question,

what, exactly, were they protecting and why?

Geoffrey cannot fathom why peace protesters would want to harm war memorials in any way. I often ask myself the same question. And yet it continues to happen:

Vietnam memorial in Corpus Christi, Texas
September 11 memorial in Emmett, Idaho
September 11 memorial in Naperville, Illinois
Medal of Honor monument in Indianapolis, Indiana
Veterans memorial in Irving, Texas
The Capitol steps spray painted during January protest march
And, of course, the flag and soldier burning in Portland.

Is it still so hard to understand why veterans would want to rally in order to protect the monuments that were erected to honor their sacrifice? Is it hard to understand why anyone would want to? Is it still so hard to understand why some may have become emotional-even angry-at the sight of anti-democracy, anti-soldier protesters and placards? Is it still so hard to understand that for most of these veterans this had little to do with Republicanism or President Bush?

Not for me.

Iraq The Model Re: The Real Front in War on Terror

Excerpts from a recent post on Iraq The Model:

"When The Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell young men waited in lines to get a haircut and when Saddam fell barbers became targets."

My father offered this simple example during a discussion we had about war on terror the other day. Although the example is very simple but the idea behind it is deep and aims at identifying the change of the main battleground for war with terror.

I wanted to talk about this because recently we've been watching the debate in America about redeployment of troops and identifying the real front we must focus on.

I see that al-Qaeda and terrorists in general didn't hide their position in this respect—despite the fact that they still operate in many parts of the world, they are clearly redirecting most effort and resources to the war in Iraq.

An Islamic state in Iraq whether to be led by al-Qaeda or one of the local extreme religious parties would be an enormous threat to the security of the region and the world and a turning point that might encourage fence-sitters to join the terrorists…the tide would be much more difficult to stop then.

Ridin' Shotgun in Range Magazine

From the Spring 2007 edition of Range magazine comes a really great article written by Jeff Goodson, a soldier currently on his second tour in Afghanistan. Three paragraphs in particular jumped out at me,

One of the biggest concerns over here-besides getting home in one piece-is the level of commitment for the war back home. Things were pretty subdued after last fall's US elections. Most folks are here because they want to be, and there's a lot of concern that the new American Congress will starve the war effort for political or ideological reasons.

People are optimistic that we can drag Afghanistan into the 20th, if not the 21st, century,and neuter its ability to serve as a training ground and base of operations for our enemies. But you can't win a war on the cheap, especially this war. Realistically, it's going to take years of military and development assistance-roads, power, schools, clinics, business training, capacity building-to bring Afghanistan to the point where a boy who comes of age here wants to marry and raise a family, rather than blow himself up at the urging of his religious leaders.

Building that kid's future is our job. We need a sustained commitment from the American people, though, to do it.

My New Pal Geoffrey

Geoffrey strikes again. Read through his latest post and you'd probably think he and I had been arguing about the US Attorney firings, or maybe we were discussing conservatism vs liberalism, or the Bush administration's job performance. Nope, none of the above.

In truth, we were talking about the Gathering of Eagles, or as Geoffrey characterized them, Gathering of Pathetic Pseudo-Patriots. As I wrote before, Geoffrey mischaracterized them and their motivations, and I proved it to him. When faced with the facts, he threw a temper tantrum. Sadly, he still does not see his error.

The larger lesson here is that some people are so partisan, so full of hate and venom, that they can't entertain a single rational thought. Once you are pegged as a "con-servative wingnut" or a "socialist liberal", forget it. You get nothing but Geoffrey's. (As in, you just pulled a Geoffrey. That's what I'm calling it from now on.)

I mean, take a look at his rationale for ignoring the topic:

"True believers, be they Islamic terrorists, Christian fundamentalists, or Republicans, are always dangerous."

Are you kidding me?! In Geoffrey's world Republicans and terrorists are equal. The absurdity would be amusing if it wasn't so disappointing. He has singled out a huge portion of this nation's citizens and deemed them somehow less than he is. They are nothing more than murdering terrorists, and should be shunned. This attitude is silly, stupid, and dangerous.

Geoffrey writes,

"You don't like it that I refuse to listen to your complaints about a few anarchists at a protest rally?"

No, no, and no. He continues to completely miss the point, or at least forget what it was he was writing about in the first place. He pulled a Geoffrey on the Gathering of Eagles' counter-protest. I called him on it and he pulled another Geoffrey, and he continues to pull Geoffreys even now.

I don't care what he thinks of conservatism, or President Bush, or the Attorney General. What I do care about is his blatant and angry mischaracterizations of a group of protesters. They are mostly veterans, many still bearing the scars from the angry protests 35 years ago. They organized themselves in order to protect the monuments erected to memorialize the sacrifices they made. They were largely successful in providing that protection and in showing solidarity and support for the current crop of US armed forces and returning veterans.

The fact that this demonstration of support is needed is exemplified by the flag and soldier burning actions which occured that same day on the other side of the country. Though the other 15,000 peace protesters stood by and allowed the few to mar their march, you can be sure that had the Eagels gathered in Portland that day, none of those videos and pictures being circulated by the republicans/terrorists would even exist. For I doubt very much that the cowards would have had the courage to light fires and chant chants with a few thousand veterans standing watch.

You see, Geoffrey, those that oppose you are no more "pathetic pseudo-patriots" than you are. Maybe someday you'll grow to understand that.

"Render Them Hostile To Bush..."

NBC reported on their blog about 2 Pakistani boys who were recruited to be jihadists. The way that they were lured into becoming "freedom fighters" and suicide bombers is educational.

"We were told to fight against Israel, America and non-Muslims," said Muhammed Bakhtiar, 17, explaining why he wanted to become a suicide bomber. "We are so unhappy with our lives here. We have nothing," he said.

The terrorist recruiters preyed upon the boys' unhappiness and turned it into hatred. Hatred so intense and indoctrinated that the boys became willing to kill and die for it. This is not new. These are the tactics that terrorist groups have used for a long time.

What is interesting is that terrorist recruiters are not settling for poor Pakistani youth. They are also spreading their lies and hatred in the United States.

According to websites translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), terrorists are being instructed on how to join online discussion groups and blogs in order to influence US citizens' opinions on the war on terror and specifically our actions in Iraq.

Some excerpts:

"There is no doubt, my brothers, that raiding American forums is among the most important means of obtaining victory in the fierce media war... and of influencing the views of the weak-minded American who pays his taxes so they will go to the infidel American army. This American is an idiot and does not [even] know where Iraq is... [It is therefore] mandatory for every electronic mujahid [to engage in this raiding]."

"Obviously, you should post your contribution... as an American... You should correspond with visitors to this forum, [bringing to their attention] the frustrating situation of their troops in Iraq... You should invent stories about American soldiers you have [allegedly] personally known (as classmates... or members in a club who played baseball and tennis with you) who were drafted to Iraq and then committed suicide while in service by hanging or shooting themselves..."

"Also, write using a sad tone, and tell them that you feel sorry for your [female] neighbor or co-worker who became addicted to alcohol or drugs... because her poor fiancé, a former soldier in Iraq, was paralyzed or [because] his legs were amputated... [Use any story] which will break their spirits, oh brave fighter for the sake of God..."

"You should enter into debate or respond only if it is extremely necessary... Your concern should [only] be introducing topics which... will cause [them to feel] frustration and anger towards their government..., which will... render them hostile to Bush... and his Republican Party and make them feel they must vote ton bring the troops back from Iraq as soon as possible."

That pretty much speaks for itself.

I would also like to point out how aware terrorists are of the battle for public opinion. This corresponds with the assertions I have made recently in regards to war protests; that the very people our soldiers are fighting are aware of the protests and the effect they have on public opinion. They know that if they simply wait long enough they won't have to defeat us, we will eventually give up and go home.

Thanks Speaker For The Waste, Fraud and Abuse

Not too long ago Speaker Pelosi announced her strategy for not only balancing the budget, but also to change the atmosphere of Congress and improve its reputation. She vowed to seek out areas of "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse" that had plagued the previous legislators.

Well, Speaker Pelosi has gone out and shown the nation exactly the kind of legislative leader she is. Showing top form, she identified a number of extraneous spending measures snuck into a non-related bill. Here are some examples of this "waste, fraud and abuse":

$250 Million for milk
$120 Million for shrimp
$75 Million for peanuts
$25 Million for spinach
$15 Million for rice

Were these spending measures discussed and debated on their merits? Were they pinpointed by Congress as special situations in need of federal monetary assistance? No, they were snuck into a totally unrelated bill in hopes it would pass without anyone noticing. This fits in perfectly with Speaker Pelosi's campaign against "waste, fraud, and abuse."

Too bad she's the one responsible for them.

You see, Ms. Pelosi wanted to pass a bill that would force the US to leave Iraq. Problem is, she wasn't sure she had enough votes to get it passed. Rather than debate the bill on its merits, Ms. Pelosi resorted to bribery. Each one of these spending projects is earmarked for the home districts of Representatives who for whatever reason were on the fence leading up to the vote. The bribes total $20 Billion.

I hope it was worth it.

Speak Up And Speak Out: The Portland Protest March

I don't know, Geoffrey, why would veterans groups want to stage a counter-protest?





The Portland Insight had reporters and photographers at the march who verified what went on ("It's all a lie. Period.").

The news outlet wrote an editorial titled, "Rudeness Mars Peace Message".

Rudeness? I don't know about you, but I didn't watch that video and think, golly that was rude.

From the editorial:

This splinter group of protesters showed its support for “peace” by burning a U.S. soldier in effigy. It exhibited its supposedly pacifist nature by knocking a police officer off his bike — an action that brought out the police riot squad.

Perhaps the most disturbing scene of the afternoon, however, involved the man who pulled down his pants in front of women and children and defecated on a burning U.S. flag. This disgusting act actually elicited cheers from some members of the crowd, but we hope that the emotion it produces in the community is one of revulsion.

The editorial claims there were 15,000 protesters in the march. If the people depicted in the editorial and the pictures and the video were just a minority splinter group denounced by the real peace activists, why didn't a single member of that 15,000 strong march speak up?

They were activist enough to speak out about actions taking place halfway around the world, but apparently not activist enough to speak up when the atrocity happens right in front of them.

Hat Tip: The Stupid Shall Be Punished