Posted from Right Truth

From John E. Carey at Peace and Freedom, posted at his request. Highly recommended:

I came to Washington DC the first time in 1972 to work in the office of a liberal Democrat Ohio Congressman. I took away from that experience my first taste of the unwritten rules governing good conduct and decorum that most groups stick to, from your local Elks Club to the U.S. Senate.Most call it the culture or the ethos the organization lives by.

Unwritten rules exist to help an organization or team function harmoniously despite severe difference. For decades, even at the lowest moments of despair and disharmony, the Senate and in fact the United States of America, operated smoothly and got business completed. If two lawmakers wanted to lock horns, they were encouraged by the leadership to “take it outside.” Of course there are historically significant altercations on Capitol Hill but they served only to reinforce the rules.

(more…)

Sphere It

Cross posted from Right Truth

This morning on Fox News Channel, there were two reports out of Iraq. Both were on new forms of technology. Both dealt with ridding Iraq of roadside bombs, IED’s, etc. Both were simple. Both worked. Neither will be used to save the lives of American soldiers or innocent Iraqis. Why? Because lawyers would not allow our military to use these technologies.

The first procedure the military wanted to use would heat the wires in bombs to such a degree that they would be unable to detonate the explosives they were attached to.

The second procedure would allow the military to put “something” into explosives that they knew would make their way back to the bomb makers. There are a limited number of bomb makers in Iraq, each has their own technique. Our military know about some of them. The “something” in the explosives would allow the bomb maker to actually blow himself and his house full of bomb making supplies into eternity forever. But nooooo. The lawyers slammed the door on both.

How more Americans and Iraqis will die. Thank you lawyers. Now go flush yourself down the toilet.

And I could not find any links on the internet or the MSM to this. Only Jennifer Griffin on Fox had a report. If any of you can find a source, leave me a link in a comment.

Cross posted from Right Truth 

Nothing is written in stone when it comes to Iraq. The last few weeks I’ve been talking about the United States backing the Shia and now the New York Times thinks it’s the Sunni we are arming. If you count supporting the Iraqi military units and police, “allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and supplies”, then yes, we are arming the Sunni and Shia.

American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past. [snip] American officers who have engaged in what they call outreach to the Sunni groups say many of them have had past links to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia but grew disillusioned with the Islamic militants’ extremist tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. In exchange for American backing, these officials say, the Sunni groups have agreed to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American units. Commanders who have undertaken these negotiations say that in some cases, Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps.

But critics of the strategy, including some American officers, say it could amount to the Americans’ arming both sides in a future civil war. The United States has spent more than $15 billion in building up Iraq’s army and police force, whose manpower of 350,000 is heavily Shiite.

If these groups turn against al-Qaeda and start helping the United States and the coalition, isn’t this a good thing?

There is more information on a Saddam-Iraq-al-Qaeda connection prior to September 11, 2001.

(more…)

It seems that the Baghdad Security Plan is working. Retired Admiral James A. Lyons Jr. reports that the success is so great, it may be time to spread out to other areas and deal with Iran using “a multifaceted approach that combines the military “big stick,” meaningful economic sanctions, and quiet support.”

One key objective of the Baghdad Security Plan designed by Gen. David Petraeus was to restore stability, if not civility, to Iraqi life. This was to be accomplished by halting the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from their western Baghdad neighborhoods and securing the capital’s central area on both sides of Tigris River. Once these military goals had been achieved, vitally needed infrastructure services to the community could be restored. So far, Gen. Petraeus’ counterinsurgency plan has achieved moderate success. According to a recent study by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, ethnic violence has decreased, schools have been renovated and reopened, local street cleaners have been hired, and sewage systems are being rebuilt. In Anbar Province, the indigenous Sunni sheiks have recently allied themselves with American forces to fight against al Qaeda among Iraq’s terrorists.

Indeed, what is occurring both in Baghdad and Ramadi could become the template to be applied elsewhere in Iraq. (Washington Times, hat tip Peace and Freedom)

I’m sure you won’t hear anything from the anti-war crowd about these achievements in Iraq. Could it be that by September Petraeus will actually have a positive report for Congress? And if so, what will their reaction be?

Originally posted at Right Truth

It is being reported in the New York Times that Commanders say the push in Baghdad is short of the goal and that commanders are speaking out against the Commander in Chief. But the the New York Times is speaking out of turn, again. Talks between the generals and the President have not, as yet, leaked out into the public. Those in the know say, “Much of what has been written or said to this point is largely speculation by people who weren’t in the discussions.” (also see this)

“In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.” (Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, Deputy Commander, First Cav., “Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal,” NYT, 4 June 2007)

How can we judge yet, when all the ’surge’ troops have not yet arrived in Iraq? How can you count your chickens before the eggs have even been laid?

“Let’s, for example look, at the Iraqi battalions. None are at full-strength, only half are operational and even fewer actually do any soldiering. To put it mildly, to say otherwise, is a misrepresentation of fact.” (Albrecht Gero Muth, “The BSP at the 90-Day Marker, A Sadrist/ JAM Perspective,” (UNOFFICIAL) (9 May 2007)

John Murtha on ABC said, “I’ve lost a lot of confidence in many of the military leaders, because they say what the White House wants them to say …”

When asked if Petraeus was included in his lack of confidence, Murtha added, “I’m waiting to see what he has to say. But I am absolutely convinced there has been this overly optimistic picture of what’s going on in Iraq, while the figures show the opposite.”

From those who know:

Clearly on the issue of policy and national level strategy, the military is not going to get out in front of the President. They will continue to render their advice to him in private. The President will decide and the military will execute. Knowing most of these men, it is hard for me to imagine them not being totally candid in their assessments and advice. They know the consequences for soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors; for the region; and for this Nation. (source withheld)

John Murtha also tried to link the John F. Kennedy airport terror plot to … Iraq. (video here)

NewsBusters says, “In reality, Murtha was brought on to counter the “things are getting better” in Iraq after the surge viewpoint expressed by the previous guest, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. (video available here)”

GEORGE STEPHANOPLIS, HOST: … You believe that these homegrown terrorist plots are being inspired by the U.S. work in Iraq right now?JOHN MURTHA, CONGRESSMAN: Absolutely. George, they were inspired by them all over the world. Our presence in Iraq, our occupation in Iraq, gives these people the inspiration. Now, we didn’t have this problem before, they came from Afghanistan. But, now we even have it in the United States. So, I’m absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But we did have 9/11 before we went into Iraq.

MURTHA: Yeah, we had 9/11, but that came from Afghanistan. There was no, there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. We don’t even know how many al Qaeda are in Iraq right now. For instance, we think a couple of thousand. They’ll take care of al Qaeda. They’ll get rid of al Qaeda. Our presence is inspiring them to recruit people all over the world. This is the problem we have.

Hot Air:

And never mind that the 9/11 plot which Murtha claims came “from Afghanistan” didn’t involve any actual people who were, you know, from Afghanistan.Spanky’s got his story and he’s sticking to it. I’ll let Tony Blair answer via his piece in the Economist,

In “Recipe For Iraq: Slice, Dice, And Serve With Rice“, R.J. Godlewski says, “Not a single member of the Democratic Party’s parade of presidential hopefuls even dares look at the prospects for victory.”

If the surge fails to produce results, then it is because the Iraqi people haven’t stepped up to the plate. This means that our next step must be one in which we pull away from traditional counterinsurgency practice – that is, we abandon the “hearts and minds” approach and concentrate on the “raw application of power” that even the most stoical individual can relate to.If the surge fails, I suggest that we pull our troops back to seal (like in hermetically) the country’s borders – primarily that with Iran and Syria – and forfeit any significant troop presence within the cities. Once we’ve basically isolated the nation from the rest of the world, we begin to slice wide swaths of “depopulated” zones horizontally through the country. By this, I mean, that we create areas that are devoid of anything and enforce this… [snip]

One, we isolate Iraq from its meddling neighbors and impose strict quarantine on what goes in and out of the country. Two, we take out everyone who is a threat to peace and security, even if it is only a political wannabe like Muqtada al-Sadr. Third, we rebuild Iraq into a beacon of all that’s good with free trade, free enterprise, and free from corruption. Iraq can exist as a free democracy working together to build a stable nation in the Middle East or it should become an example of what will happen if we lose our patience. The choice is definitely theirs to make.
(more)

I’m not sure what Murtha would say about that. He would probably go on the talk show circuit and be the toast of the anti-war crowd — again.

Originally posted at Right Truth 

Iran is actively seeking to pacify the Middle East, or at least that is the line the Iranian government repeatedly trots out when accused of aiding the insurgency in Iraq. But two reports out now question the Iranian talking points.

First in Iraq, where it has long been known Iran is contributing to both Shia and Sunni groups to make life difficult for the Iraqi government and Coalition soldiers. The Guardian reports Iran already has a plan to ramp up the violence in time for U.S. General Petraeus’ report to Congress this fall.

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran’s Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. “We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus’s report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush’s controversial, six-month security “surge” of 30,000 troop reinforcements],” the official said.

“Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that’s been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we’ve turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid,” the official said.

The expected uptick in violence is being orchestrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps who answers only to the Ayatollah, according to the U.S. official quoted by the Guardian. None of this is exactly surprising to anyone who has followed Iran’s involvement in Iraq.

Now to Afghanistan where the Telegraph reports Iran has armed and trained the Taliban to fight Coalition and specifically British forces. Why would Iran support the Taliban when they were opposed to the Taliban during the group’s rise? It’s a matter of convenience and shared short-term objectives of course.

Officers in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are supplying hundreds of weapons, including the missiles, to Taliban insurgents, it is believed.

Most worrying is the news that SA7 Strella anti-aircraft missiles have been supplied to the Taliban . . .

Other weapons being smuggled in include plastic explosives, anti-tank mines, AK47s, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns.

“There is reporting that leads us to believe a number of agencies, that possibly include Iranian organisations, are significantly supporting the Taliban,” a military intelligence source told The Daily Telegraph.

There is no evidence that the technology behind the advanced roadside bombs that have penetrated at least four British armoured vehicles in southern Iraq has arrived in Afghanistan. But Iran is thought to have showed the Taliban how to make basic roadside bombs from old land-mines.

Just remember that in the greater context of the war in both theaters, forget all mention of Iran and focus like a laser beam on soldier deaths that just might encourage certain NATO nations to retreat after losing three while said nation has tried in earnest to keep as far away from the Taliban as they could.

Israel struck a Hamas administration building with an air strike among other air raids aimed at vehicles. Israel claims all targeted were terrorists, but Hamas claims one of the vehicles hit was a garbage truck carrying three civilians.

If the Hamas statement is true, it is certainly unfortunate. Due to the Israeli strike, Hamas has vowed to send in suicide bombers to strike, well, Israeli civilians.

But what has never stopped has been the nightly barrage of Qassam rockets and mortars into Israel. One rocket hit an Israeli school. Hamas may complain about three civilian deaths, but in this case Israel is only ‘guilty’ because they have more sound weapons. It’s not as if Hamas hasn’t tried in earnest to kill Israelis.

As has happened many times before, the Hamas strikes on Israel were the result of Hamas and Fatah fighting against each other.

Israel only acted after Hamas fired scores of qassam rockets across the Gaza perimeter mostly hitting the Israeli town of Sderot, injuring six people and causing hundreds of civilians to flee.

The Hamas barrage, the largest in months, appeared to be a cynical ploy to provoke an Israeli response. After days of fierce factional fighting with Fatah in which 41 Palestinians died, Hamas believed a tough Israeli response might force the two rival groups to overcome their differences and unite against a common enemy.

Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader exiled to Syria, reflected this thinking when, hours after Israel launched its retaliatory attacks, he heralded the “historic opportunity” for the two factions to join together.

The attempt to end the fighting between Hamas and Fatah by striking Israel makes sense considering Hamas blames Israel for the infighting anyways.

An ambush early Sunday morning in Iraq killed four United States soldiers, their interpreter and ended up taking three U.S. soldiers hostage. The Islamic State of Iraq quickly took credit for the operation.

The U.S. military launched a massive search for their missing comrades, and now Al Qaida in Iraq is saying the search should be called off if there is any hope the three hostages will be released.

“Your soldiers are in our hands. If you want your soldiers’ safety, do not search for them,” the Internet posting said.

And yet, the only hope the three soldiers have of being found alive, presuming they are not already dead, is if they are rescued. Al Qaida in Iraq would make a huge error in their ways if they did not kill the soldiers since the professed reason for their jihad is to kill Americans even though the group has made a name for itself in Iraq by murdering Iraqi civilians.

There’s not much good news to report in this entire incident, but what is encouraging is that the U.S. military has received assistance in the form of local sheikhs and Iraqis in the area that is now cornered off and under search. It once again dispels the myth that Iraqis will not cooperate with the U.S. military, but since this entire ordeal will most likely end in tragedy, that lesson will once again be forgotten.

On the Al Qaida in Iraq front, it’s pretty obvious what their goal is (HT Cao).

Mohamad al-Janabi, a reputed al-Qaeda member in the nearby city of Salman Pak, said in a telephone interview that he was unable to contact his comrades in Mahmudiyah to determine whether they were responsible for the attack.

But he added: “I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him.”

Coalition forces located three trucks with anti-aircraft guns driven by suspected terrorists near Karmah, Iraq in the Anbar province after the suspects were firing upon a house. The house, we’re told, was indeed not in flight at the time.

Intelligence reports and surveillance of a known al-Qaeda in Iraq meeting location led Coalition Forces to three trucks, two of which carried mounted anti-aircraft artillery weapons. Coalition Forces followed the vehicles to an area where terrorists emerged from the vehicles and engaged two houses with heavy fire. The ground attack was assessed to be practice for possible future attacks against Coalition Forces.

Coalition Forces continued to follow the vehicles as they left the target practice location and waited until the armed vehicles were away from potential civilian casualties. A fixed-wing aircraft was called in to destroy the vehicles. One truck with an anti-aircraft weapon and two sedans associated with the trucks were destroyed, killing an estimated 10 to 14 terrorists.

The two remaining trucks departed the strike scene in different directions, but Coalition Forces continued to follow them. Each was destroyed in a separate air strike after the vehicle’s occupants abandoned it and fled the scene.

Coalition Forces followed an additional vehicle from the scene of the first strike and targeted the building it returned to in an overnight raid. Eight suspected terrorists were detained in the raid, and one was treated for shrapnel wounds he received from the air strike earlier in the evening. (source)

It was Al Qaida in Iraq that was targeted. MNF-Iraq claims it was an Al Qaida in Iraq training session.

Video of the attack:

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, national security advisor to Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Malik, met with U.S. Representative John Murtha and Senator Carl Levin to make the case there is still much to fight for in Iraq.

“I know that they are running out of patience, and I understand this very well,” Mr. Rubaie said in a Monday interview in which he outlined his case. “And we have to play the political game. But I feel we are on the last mile of a walk toward success, and if they let go and don’t take our hand, I feel that we are going to lose everything.”

“We need to start lobbying in D.C.,” Mr. Rubaie said, adding that the effort was the idea of the Iraqi government, not the Bush administration. “We need to make people understand our perspective — what are the challenges we are facing, what are the difficulties we are facing. We are not lying and doing nothing.”

“We believe that some people in D.C. are asking the government to do something not in their hand — beyond the capacity of the government,” he said. “If you ram it down our throats and sync it to Washington because of the election cycle,” he warned, then “things will crumble.”

While the Times article does not note Murtha’s response to his meeting with al-Rubaie, Levin stated “clocks are action-forcing mechanism” and al-Rubaie’s comment that it will take teaching a new generation of Iraqis the workings of a Democratic government would be too long.

Levin, for his part, voted in favor of General Petraeus even after Petraeus argued for more involvment in Iraq including adding soldiers to the battlefield.  Levin though has not changed his position on Iraq, thus circumventing the authority he granted Petraeus by his vote.  If Levin would not listen to General Petraeus, why would he listen to al-Rubaie?