Warmed Over Cold Warrior

Al-Zarqawi Fumbles Rifle; AP Fumbles Spin

2006-05-04T18:31:00.000-05:00

As part of its continuing coverage of the Iraq Information War, the Associated Press reports that a Video Shows Al-Zarqawi Fumbling With Rifle : "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is shown wearing American tennis shoes and unable to operate his automatic rifle in video released Thursday by the U.S. military as part of a propaganda war aimed at undercutting the image of the terror leader."

Isn't that a great lead to a story about how US Centcom captured the original film from an Al-Quaeda propaganda piece played on the internet? As released by the AQ folks, Zarqawi is shown firing weapons with aplomb while taunting the US forces and trying to build up his image as a great Islamic Warrior. But the facts were very different; in the original un-edited video, the AQ Team seems to be pretty poor at weapons handling - they had trouble getting a SAW to fire in full Auto mode and then managed to get burned by grabbing the hot muzzle of the fired weapon. Not to mention having their star Islamic purist wearing New Balance tennis shoes (guess that's the newest rage among the elite Jihadis).

Yes, the AP and Reuters did tell the story; but the slant from the first paragraph would lead a scanning reader to view it as an incident of US spin. The real story is one of US success in attacking and catching the AQ team faster than they can react. You can get a better (Both more accurate and earlier) version of this story from Bill Roggio who updates his even earlier report on Hunting Zarqawi and Tales of the Tape (Updated): "Maj. Gen. Lynch's observations on Zarqawi's handling of the machine gun matches an observation I made the day the tape was released, 'In the final scene in the desert, Zarqawi shoots an M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon)... Zarqawi does not appear particularly comfortable firing the weapon.' I also noted that it was curious there was no footage of Zarqawi actually leading a tactical operation. It will be interesting to see if such footage exists.

CENTCOM should release this video immediately, as if the video is as unflattering as they purport it to be, it is an ideal opportunity to conduct an Information Operation against Zarqawi. Zarqawi is portrayed as the warrior-leader of the Iraqi jihad, and the compromising, unedited video can work to erode his image. [CENTCOM released the video after this post was published. Kudos to CENTCOM.]"

I met Bill Roggio at the recent Milbloggers Conference. He is a very smart objective reporter and analyst, who is self-embedding himself with the US military in Afganistan this month. Look for his reports and analysis on the Counterterrorism Blog.

Actually, AP and Reuters deserve credit for reporting the Zarqawi Fumble Video and I hope they get a lot of coverage from it. I just wish they would tell the story more like Bill does. Our military is very adaptive and very successful; the press should give them the credit they deserve.

Milblogs and Media Innovation

2006-04-26T09:18:00.000-05:00

Well, the MilBlog Conference 2006 is history now but it also made history. It was a fascinating educational event for me; the 100-150 attendees were highly enthusiastic and engaged. I hear that a great many more were participating via internet, as one would expect since many military bloggers and blog readers are deployed around the globe.

There are a number of good summaries and opinion posts available now, including this Live-Blogging post by non-military blogger La Shawn Barber. I cite her post because she was there and working all day and represents the new media innovation of a joint civilian and military blogosphere.

Bruce Kesler in Democracy Project notes: "The impact of the Internet, and how it serves our warriors, is the focus of two important posts today. Put these against the rants of OBL and friends, often absurd but always featured by the major media, and see another reason why they’re no match for our guys." He quotes from two posts by Beltway Blog and Strategy Page and follows up with a thoughtful article that asks Is the Press Covering the Iraq War On the Cheap?: "Journalists are reviled by many for alleged negativism and over-focus on bad news in Iraq. Or perhaps the problem is: Their employers are just trying to do it on the cheap. Ironically, the same media that criticizes the U.S. for sending too few troops to stabilize Iraq send too few reporters to cover much more than the dramatic bombings around Baghdad. "

That's a good question and discussed well in the article by Kesler and Joe Galloway. They have nailed the problem - reporters don't leave the security of the Green Zone in Baghdad; they hire Iraqi stringers to give them news. They suggest that improving insurance and training for reporters will make them more willing and able to risk combat reporting. Perhaps, but the existence of so many good milbloggers suggests another option - use them as stringers to report the news from the front. They are articulate and honest; to the extent they have a bias it will be openly pro-American rather than the hidden anti-American bias of many of the Iraqi stringers currently feeding "news" to reporters.

That's a novel way for the military and the media to cooperate in getting sound fair reportage. It would take some setting of reasonable ground rules so that soldiers could do their job first and report (blog) with Opsec in mind. But that's exactly what is happening now and the Milbloggers are getting read and their reports getting spread by other blogs. Like all innovations, this will take some experimentation; and it's already beginning. I mentioned the Milblog Wire before. At the conference, Military.com announced their intention to start a new service to aggregate and publish milblogger posts as news or op-eds, depending on content. Both work on the principle that they can select a good timely feed from many bloggers, making a product that draws readers and advertisers. Bloggers can get paid to the extent their efforts produce reader interest and revenue.

It will be interesting to see how these and other business models work out. But the key thing is that they are happening; the business innovators are joining the blog innovators to create a new media dynamic.

On Milblogs, OSD and More

2006-04-21T08:40:00.000-05:00

The role of milblogs and the Rumsfeld controversy are discussed in a thoughtful piece at the The Boston Globe . They present a view from the top (OSD) and from the field that I'll quote. It addresses some of the issues in my last two posts but not all. So, first from the Globe:

"There are hundreds of milblogs, and the Pentagon, which has cautiously supported some of them but also has deep concerns about the ability to control them, recently ordered a top level advisory panel to study the issue.

'' 'Googling' and 'blogging' are making their way into military operations at all levels,' Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary of defense, wrote in a recent memo requesting that the Defense Science Board look into the matter. ''But the full implications of this revolution are as yet unknown, and we have no clear direction and defined doctrine.'"

That's pretty close to what I think and a good reason for the OSD folks to pay close attention to milblogging. It would be concerning if OSD focused more on "controlling the damage" than exploiting the opportunity. Nor should they focus only on milblogging per se rather than on how blogging in general, as well as milblogging, may provide an opportunity to utilize a very large pool of citizen volunteer expertise.

The view from the field cites the big advantage of milbloggers in keeping the public informed and resolved :

"John, the Air Force officer at op-for.com, contends that the Pentagon leadership appreciates the need for the kind of connection between the military and the public that the military blogs provide.
''The lieutenants and the captains of the Vietnam War are the generals of today," he said in an interview. ''They saw us lose not on the battlefield, but in the halls of Congress, the universities, and with the public. They understand the importance of fighting a political war when the military is engaged in a long police action and occupation like Iraq.""

Like OSD, John is also concerned about the possibility of damaging leaks. But that danger must be weighed against the danger of bad or no information leading to a loss of popular resolve and against the benefit of finding and getting critical expertise quickly. That brings me to my next point.

It should be not just about OSD and Milblogs or just about conducting net-centric military actions. It should be also about harnessing civilian volunteers as a part of a national effort in a long war conducted with the use of forces and ideas. That's the key point that John makes about Vietnam. And there are a great many Americans willing to join in a national effort; just remember the enormous volunteer efforts that spring up after catastrophes from Manhatten to Katrina. It would be useful to consider a doctrine that includes that aspect of our power in an ideologic war. Not all the reserves that get called up (virtually drafted or volunteered?) need to wear uniforms or report for duty in the traditional legacy sense.

For a broad civilizational slant on the the current war on terror, consider Lee Harris's review of Oriana Fallaci's The Force of Reason : "Islam, she tells us, presents a threat to the very existence of Western civilization, of conscience, of toleration, of liberalism — .. . (she views Islam as the 'Enemy of Reason' and that it is) ... on a different kind of march, against which the West appears to have no defenses.

It is not just terrorism that Fallaci is talking about — not even the catastrophic terror of 9/11 or the Madrid bombing; what alarms her most is "the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens...the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism...." What enrages her most, on the other hand, is the refusal of European leaders to recognize what is at stake in this war, ... (as she) illustrates, a situation has developed in Europe where "native" Europeans are being increasingly forced to play by Muslim rules, and to accept Muslim culture."

In this sense, the Danish 'Cartoon War' is a successful battle in an ideologic war to the extent that Western Governments and citizens are forced to self- censor themselves and accord deference to Islam. Over time, this approach produces a cumulative cultural ratcheting towards Islamic dominance with Islamic opponents intimidated into silence by threats of criminal charges or even death. As Harris puts it :
Again, the paradox: What force can reason possess in a world dominated by intellectual terrorists for whom dialogue and debate mean nothing?"

If that ( or anything close to it) is the underlying threat, it seems wise to bring all aspects of our military, political, cultural and economic forces to bear. We have the resources to deal with this. If OSD engages this issue, it should start from a broad perspective.

Form Up Information Militias ?

2006-04-20T20:24:00.000-05:00

My last post talked about some new activities on the Milblog front and the potential for bloggers to be an information age militia. It's not a very new concept; one could say it's already a work in progress. But the theme for this year's DSB Summer Study begs the question of whether it would be desirable to form a more collaborative government - blogosphere arrangement and if so how.

A good example is the ongoing translation of the (finally) released Iraqi documents on the web with blogs providing results and analyses ( see Captain's Quarters blog for some good coverage). Like the blog swarm of expertise and coverage that marked RatherGate, this is being done by an instantly formed community with pertinent interest and expertise focusing on a specific problem. The community forms up, works at its own initiative under mutually collaborative guidance, and disbands when the mission is accomplished. Sounds pretty much like the classic modus operandi for a militia.

Of course, these on-line communities or information age militia aren't formally organized and controlled; they form themselves as participants and experts discover a mutual interest and join in a collaborative solution. This is a key advantage that needs to survive any more robust cooperation or joint operations with the government. It's also been largely true that, as in the above example, the government's participation has not been very forthcoming and the leadership has come form the other side ( e.g. Stephen Hayes).

What's not being addressed is how to set up a cooperative endeavor between the blogger and government communities to address a few key national problems ammenable to blogging solution. Off hand, that might involve these kinds of activities:
* Seek help on high priority needs ( mostly Gov)
* Publicize the needs (Both) and free up data access (mostly Gov)
* Coordinate a voluntary effort (mostly Blogs)
* Do the work and keep it open (Blogs)
* Decide on results and and take action (mostly Gov).

There are many "mostly" items because there shouldn't be overly rigid roles. For example, the blog community may see an important need and engage with the government adjusting to help and use the products. Or the action may be simply the making the public aware of what's been done or learned. The objectives of a cooperative arrangement may include uncovering new facts or analyzing critical data; maintaining the American people's resolve by providing credible information; or influencing other nations or peoples by information exchange.

The real question is whether there is mutual advantage to such an arrangement. Is it better to let things evolve as they are or should we form up the Information Militias?

MilBlog Conference 2006

2006-04-18T20:55:00.000-05:00

This coming Saturday is the date for the first MilBlog Conference: "The 2006 Milblog Conference will take place in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, April 22, 2006. The conference is designed to bring milbloggers together for one full day of interesting discussion on topics associated with milblogging. We will explore the history of milblogs, as well as what the future may hold for this medium which the military community is using to tell their stories."

It should be an interesting time with good panelists and over 185 participants. One participant is starting a new version of a wire service, the Milblog Wire which "functions like any other wire service, aggregating stories from the field and making them available for your readership. The difference is now it comes direct from folks the American public has a high degree of trust in, not an overseas stringer.The content providers for the Milblog Wire are serving military members, their former comrades in arms, and their friends and families."

And,of course, the original Dawn Patrol aggregating service, the Mudville Gazette ,will also be there as a key participant and panelist. As will Col. Austin Bay, Bill Roggio, and a host of others.

By coincidence, the Defense Science Board (DSB) 2006 Summer Study (pdf) is addressing Information Management for Net-Centric Operations. The study terms of reference seem broad enough to include consideration of the uses and impacts of milblogging both in theater and at home. I wonder if they will send some one to get ideas from this conference?

It would be a great opportunity to learn about and explore the benefits and possibilities for milblogging and supportive blogging to aid extended operations in a long war of ideology mixed with combat. Blogs not only provide information (much of which never gets by media filters), they also foster immediate information exchanges which can discover or concentrate expertise on specific issues in real time. Understanding and using this phenomenon should benefit military operations as well as maintain citizen will and resolve through credible current news.

Of course, the milbloggers are already doing more to keep up morale and resolve on the home front than the media; but it would be nice if the DSB learned about it and how to cooperate with the bloggers. Milbloggers seem to be the modern information age version of minutemen and miltia. There should be a lot of advantage to conducting mutually desirable "joint operations" with the regulars and this new-age militia if we can be innovative about how we collaborate.

Call It The War On Jihadism

2006-04-17T19:18:00.000-05:00

In an earlier post, here, I had complimented Sen. Rick Santorum for his outspoken defense and characterization of the current war as being waged against "Islamic Fascists" rather then against "Terror". It's essential to know and name your "Enemy" to fight effectively. I have used the term "Islamist" to distinguish the violent, radical, fascist, jihadist faction in Islam from majority of Muslims and the broader religion of Islam. But no one has a really good, simple and broadly acceptable term for and definition of our enemy.

Jonathan Rauch suggest a good solution to that problem. I think the suggestion makes sense, has historic authenticity, and is timely. So, I'm going to quote extensively from his National Journal article, A War On Jihadism -- Not 'Terror':
"'I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,' says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. 'If you can't define who's a real threat and who's just exercising free speech, it's a problem.' As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.

Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.

But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.

No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for 'the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.'

In her new book, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror , Habeck sets out to map the ideological contours of Jihadism. The story begins, but does not end, with religion. 'Western scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously,' she writes.

'Secularists, whether liberals or socialists, grant true explanatory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.' Pretending that Islam is incidental, she notes, is not just incorrect, it is patronizing.

Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, 'Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.' Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.

And always has been. The point that Bush, Blair, and others understandably finesse is that the ideology of Jihadism traces its lineage to the very beginning of the religion of Islam. It has 'roots in discussions about Islamic law and theology that began soon after the death of Muhammad and that are supported by important segments of the clergy (ulama) today,' Habeck writes."

Two other new books strikingly document the connection. One is The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Edited by Andrew G. Bostom, it provides more than 700 pages of source material on jihadist doctrine and practice (including many fascinating translations from Arabic). A second is Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh, a political scientist and historian who heads the Mediterranean studies program at King's College (part of the University of London).

A key point from these books is that there have always been two distinct threads running through the religion of Islam - one moderate and adaptable to other religions and cultures and the other rigidly 'Jihadist'. Thus , our problem becomes recognizing this tension within Islam so that we can engage and encourage cordial relations with the moderates while energetically fighting and thwarting the Jihadists. Properly naming the enemy is essential to both these objectives and to devising national strategies to accomplish them.

One could argue that the Bush Administration is doing that in practice while not clearly articulating its position for reasons of diplomatic or religious nicety. Perhaps, but the lack of a clearly defined enemy is very unhelpful in explaining why we should fight a long war. I think it would help immensly if the Administation would adopt this approach and terminology. It would open up a solid array of historical scholarship to define the problem, the enemy, and how he thinks and has acted through history. In a Nuclear Age, I don't think we can afford not to have a broad popular understanding of the essential characteristics of our enemy.

As Rauch's article puts it : "This is a struggle over Islam and who's going to control Islam," Habeck says. "If you can't talk about that, you can't talk about most of the story." Specifying that the war is against Jihadism -- as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like "Islam") -- would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West's war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular. ...... Habeck cites one other reason to call the enemy jihadists: "This is what they call themselves."

Thanks to Instapundit for the reference to Rauch's article. I think it this is a useful and timely suggestion. Read the article and try the books; I have Bostum's book and it is a lengthy, well documented product. Habeck's sounds very interesting at about 1/3rd the page count.

Facing a Frightening Truth

2006-04-16T12:39:00.000-05:00

Amir Taheri believes a vision of global dominance by an "Islamic Superpower" is The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb: "In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic 'superpower' has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim 'ghazis' (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.
According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the 'Dr Kissinger of Islam', President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have 'run away'. Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by 'divine coincidence', corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys."

In the near term, he expects Ahmadinejad to finesse the UN deadline in April and the G-8 meeting in Russia in June by making announcements of "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment and of consideration of signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). These announcements would have no substance other than to delay or prevent international interference, while Iran builds a nuclear arsenal and a strong alliance of (or underground factions in) Mid-East nations.

In addition to Iran's existing influence in Syria and Lebanon, Tahiri notes that Ahmadinejad is trying to take-over the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza and has "reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco".

I suspect Taheri is right about Ahmadinejad's belief in his religious destiny and the above analysis fits that model. If Iran could achieve effective "control" in the countries cited, it would have a solid "Caliphate" base with a nuclear umbrella under which it could pursue global goals by a combination of low-level warfare and religious conversion. The objective of Islamic global dominance is politico-religious and need not involve major military battles. A gradual decline of resolve and will is sufficient; perhaps with some well-orchestrated acts of deceptive terrorism, along the lines of Robert Ferrigno's concept for "Prayers for the Assassin".

Of course, there are some glitches in the analysis and strategy. It gambles heavily on the concepts that Americans' prefer short wars and are tiring of this war. It fails to correlate those perceptions with the fact that many Americans do not see this war as existential - yet. Should Iran's strategy succeed enough to change the American perception of existential danger, the next war is apt to be very short, very violent and catastrophic for them. And the Iranians will discover that while Russia and China may play geopolitical games with them against America now, they will not join them in an existential war against America.

In a longer term context, the demographics of religion may not be so favorable to Islamist extremists. Those "hundreds of millions" of young Muslims may not be so ready for death when they have a real option of a good economic future and personal freedom. On this Easter Sunday, we should also note that Pope Benedict is preaching a new strong message against religious perversion by extremists and there are about as many Catholics in the world as Muslims. (And a lot of Hindus and Bhudists who are unlikely to convert or submit to Islam.) An open public conversation among religions in a free and prospering climate will favor Western goals far more than Islamist ones.

Taheri thinks Ahmadinejad's strategy is to seeks a slow conflict that wears down the West; I agree that's a danger, but think the combined Western political, economic and religious forces will prove too strong. America just won a 60 year long slow Cold War and the Catholic church and other religions have survived for centuries. The greater danger is that Ahmadinejad is truly fanatic and abandons the slow war strategy for a major nuclear dice roll to create a chaotic environment from which Islam can arise and be led to victory by the 12th Imam.

That's the contingency that is truly frightening and it must be addressed decisively and soon.

Could Ahmadinejad Mean What He Says?

2006-04-14T21:36:00.000-05:00

We all hear that Iran seeks nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. What other purpose would motivate them? Is it possible to take President Ahmadinejad of Iran at his word when he says, , according to BREITBART.COM : "The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was 'heading toward annihilation,' just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

If that's not clear - or if you don't understand his intentions towards Israel and the United States - perhaps the picture at the right will help. It comes from the October Arab conference on a World without Zionism. Note Ahmadinejad watching as the Israeli ball falls to break next to the already broken US ball. Is this image and his spoken words so hard to fathom?

This Iran regime can not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons. It may well not be easy to prevent that from happening; but it will much less painful to act now than later.

I realize that these current statements from Iran can be viewed as negotiating ploys and that our leaders and DoD may read them that way and deal with them realistically. But the real issue is how this plays with the American public and its will to fight harder and longer against a (nominally) new enemy.

A Debate on Striking Iran

2006-04-13T11:30:00.000-05:00

The Hugh Hewitt's Blog has a long post on the pro-con arguments about striking Iran before it gets nuclear weapons. He views this as the biggest debate of all and offers to host some of it on his blog: "I will gladly reprint here e-mails from military experts with supporting or opposing views, and will also oblige those who request anonymity provided I can be assured that the writer is who he or she says they are. ..... E-mails can be directed to hugh@hughhewitt.com. "

I'll summarize the five main objections and counter points here, but you should read it all and, if you have the expertise, join in the debate. From Hewitt :

1. The United States military cannot accomplish the mission.

The first part of this objection is that we lack the intelligence to target the right targets.
The second is that the damage that the American military could inflict would be minimal.
The third is that the struck targets could be rebuilt.

All of these seem to me to be military questions, and the left's assertions about the limits of the American military seem dubious to me. ..... Civilians like Alter and me have no business declaring what the U.S. military can or cannot do, but unless the military declares that a mission is beyond its capability, there is much more evidence for the proposition that the Pentagon can accomlish missions rather than the other way around.

2: Striking Iran will cause Iran to strike against our troops in Iraq.

First, there is already an enemy in Iraq trying very hard to kill American troops. ..... (this) seems again to doubt the capacity of the American military to decisively destroy any counter-attacks from the Iranian military, which is absurd, or to suggest that Iranian cross-border meddling could be greater than it already is --another doubtful assertion.

But even admitting that Iran would try to make things worse in Iraq, that is an insufficient answer to the prospect of a nuclear Iran which, upon successful deployment of a nuclear weapon, becomes impossible to threaten over Iraq meddling. The only limit on Iranian interference now is the prospect of American retaliation. Add nukes to the Iranian military capability, and the prospect of Iranian meddling in Iraq skyrockets.

3. An attack on Iran will unleash Iranian-sponsored terrorism around the world.

This argument seems to support decisive, regime-changing military action rather than inaction, given that it presumes a capability and a willingness of the current Iranian regime to use terror around the globe and its proxy Hezbollah to conduct that terror.

Given that presumption, how can delay until Iran becomes a nuclear power benefit the West?

4. America's position in the world will crumble if we attack Iran.

the United States will suffer a great deal of intense and worldwide public criticism if an attack happens --and a great deal of private gratitude.

What all the aging cold warriors seem to refuse to want to recognize is that this is a very different threat from that posed by the never-other-than-wanting-to-stay-alive Soviet Union. Hojjatieh is not about preserving the peace or a balance of power, or any sort of cold or even lukewarm war. When I see an analysts deal with that problem and still counsel restraint, I'll pay attention.

5. There are other ways of deterring Iran's nuclear program.

The only argument against that makes any sense is that measures short of military action will deter Iran from going nuclear. This could be a persuasive argument --it is the one the president has been making, btw-- but thus far nothing has worked, and the Secuirty Council continues to dither.

If the domestic left and its allies around the globe want to avoid the use of military force in Iraq, its spokesmen should immediately put forward demands for world action of the most severe sort, and specifics have to be attached to such demands. Critics of the possible use of military force that offer no alternative and refuse to acknowledge the menace that has now reached the stage of a public announcement and staged celebrations in Iran are simply noisy distractions from the central challenge of the generation.

A Pulitzer Prize for Terrorist Propaganda?

2006-04-13T10:36:00.000-05:00

The question is did the Pulitzer Prize for Photography go to an Iraqi stringer for AP who is a terrorist or a terrorist collaborator? The blogosphere is all over this story, but I haven't seen it in the MSM yet. The best place to start is with Michelle Malkin , who asks "Where is Bilal Hussein--and who is he working for?"

She continues: "A year ago, I blogged about a controversial, Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by an unidentified Associated Press stringer in Iraq. More background from the blogosphere here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Do take the time to re-read them all. The context is important.

One member of the Pulitzer-winning AP team was AP stringer Bilal Hussein. Hussein's photos have raised serious, persistent questions about his relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were/are staged in collusion with the enemy. I've learned of an intriguing news development that strengthens those lingering suspicions.

This afternoon, in response to a tip from an anonymous military source in Iraq, I contacted both the AP reporter embedded with the Marines in Ramadi, Todd Pitman, as well as AP's media relations office headquartered in New York concerning Hussein's whereabouts. No word from Pitman. But at 6:20pm EDT, I received the following e-mail response from AP:

We are looking into reports that Mr. Hussein was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq but have no further details at this time.
Jack Stokes
The Associated Press
Corporate Communications

According to my tipster, Hussein was captured earlier today by American forces in a building in Ramadi, Iraq, with a cache of weapons.

I am still awaiting a response from the DOD's Combined Press Information Center and a Public Affairs Officer in Ramadi."

Her post goes into a lot more detail with the pictures to make her points. Read it all. And then ask yourself whether the MSM would be so quiet if this story were about a pro-America reporter being involved with propagandizing for the US Army?

Getting the Real Rest of the News

2006-04-07T09:25:00.001-05:00

In this National Review Online article, On Iraq, Michael Ledeen exhorts the Pentagon to do a better job of countering Iraqi insurgents' use of disinformation operations to sway US and World opinion. He also takes on the US Media, including their Baghdad components, for being too gullible (at a minimun) and willing to go along with the anti-American theme. He use this example to make his case :

"On March 26, an Iraqi special-forces unit attacked a building on the outskirts of northeast Baghdad, where they had tracked a group of terrorists. They had good reason to do so, because three members of the unit had been kidnapped by the terrorists, and were savagely tortured and killed. Their fingers and toes were cut off, their joints were penetrated with an electric drill, and they were eviscerated while still alive. It later turned out that the terrorists were members of Moqtadah al-Sadr's militia.
The attack was a rousing success. Sixteen terrorists were killed, and another 16 or so were captured. A hostage was freed, and a considerable weapons cache — along with the inevitable materials to manufacture IEDs — was uncovered. ......

It wasn't good enough. In less than an hour, 20 bodies were laid out in a mosque nearly two miles away, and American and Iraqi journalists were invited to see the "scene" of the "massacre." A classic disinformation campaign was under way, which, at least for a while, was a more potent blow in the war than the special-forces' operation. Initial press reports (and even comments from the usually careful and restrained Iraqi blogger Zayed) spoke of an American raid against a mosque, not an Iraqi assault against a terrorist haven, and the usual claims of random killings of civilians went out on wires and airways."

Read the whole thing to see how the Media is exploited by the enemy and fails to provide the real big story of yet another disinformation exercise, contenting itself at best with an inconspicuous correction. Ledeen concludes with this:

"By now, the press corps has the same eyewitness account as I do, and they know as well as I do that the source is excellent. They should tell the true story and alert their readers that, in this war, information is manipulated by our enemies and initial reports are often misleading.

Alas, as things currently stand, the only reporters who stay with a story long enough to get it right are the top bloggers, and the only citizens who have enough patience and attentiveness to wait before drawing conclusions are the readers of the blogs."

Well, what about those blogs? At the time of the above event, as the NYT and WaPo were reporting on it, Bill Roggio began the first of three posts on his Fourth Rail blog. In U.S. vs. the Mahdi Army, we read:

U.S. forces appear to have struck at Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiite Madhi Army at a "husseiniya" (a Shi’ite house of worship) in Baghdad. Belmont Club rounds up reports from Zayed at Healing Iraq and the BBC. The Washington Post also reports on the event but states Iraqi forces were involved in the battle. U.S. military has yet to confirm the incident. The news accounts indicate anywhere from 18 to 21 Madhi militiamen were killed during the raid. No word on any U.S or Iraqi Army casualties. In a seemingly unrelated incident, Sadr's home in Najaf was the target of a mortar attack.

The impending fight against the Shiite militias, and particularly Sadr's Mahdi Army, has been telegraphed for some time. On March 18, Strategy Page predicted the ensuing conflict.

Note three points about this blog excerpt : first, a "husseiniya" is a building but may not be a "mosque"; second, there is extensive linking to other media and blogs so you can form a knowledgeable opinion; third, it puts the attack in the context of a larger picture and links to Strategy Page for more on that aspect.

His second posts, here , comes a few hours later and headlines that Multinational Forces - Iraq reports Iraqi Special Forces led the fight against the Madhi militia in Baghdad and provides more current details on the raid and the Iraq involvement. His third post, Powerplay , comes out early on the 27th (all three within a day's time). It updates the situation and analyzes it in the context of the broader military strategy and the internal Iraqi political maneuverings.

The bottom line ? If you want to get the Real rest of the news, read a few good blogs.

Finding the Rest of The News from Iraq

2006-04-07T06:17:00.000-05:00

It can be hard to find out what else is happening in Iraq besides bombings. So it's very helpful to hear from someone who has a good source of news and compiles it. If you'ld like to hear the rest of the news regularly, check the Monday editions of National Review Online for Bill Crawford on Iraq.

The April 3 edition starts : "Welcome to another round-up of good news in Iraq. Two positive trends have remained strong. First, Iraqi forces continue to takeover more battlespace from the U.S., and they continue to show that they are capable of securing their own country. Second, Iraqi citizens continue to provide tips against terrorists and insurgents. Also noteworthy is that the number of attacks is decreasing, and the number of casualties with it. Finally, this week's edition features several stories about heroes — soldiers who went above and beyond in their service to our country and were recognized for it."

It continues with a solid roundup of news and facts and stats, and some fine stories of real successes and heroism by our military. This edition tells the story of Sgt. Paul Smith who received the first Congressional Medal of Honor awarded for service in Iraq. Read the whole thing.

You don't have to wait till the Monday edition of NRO to hear the rest of the news (that Legacy Media doesn't report) from Iraq. You can link to Bill Crawford's blog, All Things Conservative , where you can find news items like this:
" Eight mass graves containing around 1 000 bodies have been found near Iraq's northern oil hub of Kirkuk, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) announced on Thursday.

'Most of the victims were Kurds, as well as some Christians and Turcoman, who lived in these two majority Kurdish villages,' the PUK said in a statement.

Also included among the victims were Shi'ites killed during the 1991 repression of an uprising by former dictator Saddam Hussein, it said.

What is interesting here is that I haven't seen this news on any American news sites. This might change, but for now you have to go to the foreign press to find it. "

and this :
"In other news from Iraq that the mainstream media will probably also ignore, bombings are down 84% this year:

According to a study by the Brookings Institution, as of last May, the monthly rate of suicide car attacks stood at 136.

By December, however, that number had fallen to just 30 per month. In February - the last month for which statistics are available - car bombings were down to just 22 per month.

Please, someone explain this to me. First, I want to be fair here, so I will just say that perhaps the MSM will report on these two stories, but if they don't I want to give my readers the opportunity to explain why they shouldn't. Why does ABC News report(rightly so) on a few bodies found here and there in Baghdad, but doesn't report that new mass graves have been found or that bombings in Iraq are down significantly. Seriously, someone explain it to me.

I can't explain it; but I'm glad to find and pass on the rest of the news.

Online Freedom of Speech - the FEC and Congress

2006-03-27T19:19:00.000-05:00

I believe freedom of speech is a fundamental right. The concept of curtailing a citizen's right to speak about politicians and political issues prior to elections is especially repugnant. That's when speech is most important.

On another blog, I've posted aboutThe Threat to Internet Free Speech from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka the McCain-Feingold Act, and about the proposed FEC Rules to regulate online speech in the 60 days prior to an election. The FEC has acted, doing the minimum required by a court ruling; but that still makes free speech a privilege and no longer a right. Congress created this situation by passing an ambiguous law and should act to fix it by passing H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. So, I'm repeating a post from my other blog to emphasize the need for pressure on Congress to act now.

As expected the FEC voted to adopt the draft rules on internet political speech, thus imposing the minimum regulation required by the 2004 court decision. As the Wall Street Journal puts it - FEC Won't Regulate Most Activity On Web Under Campaign Law:

"In its initial interpretation of the law in 2002, the FEC said no political activity on the Internet was covered. But a federal court judge ruled in 2004 that the commission had to craft a new rule that at the very least covered paid political advertising on the Internet.

The ruling, and the commission's decision not to appeal it, sparked fears among some Internet users that the panel might adopt broader restrictions. But Toner said the new rule gives a 'categorical and unqualified' exemption to all individual and group political activity on the Internet, except for paid advertising. ........

Hans A. von Spakovsky, appointed to the commission by President Bush in January, said the rule wouldn't have been necessary had the commission appealed the court ruling. He urged Congress to pass legislation exempting all types of political activity over the Internet from regulation."

Bradley A Smith, the former FEC Chairman whom I've quoted before, has this to say here:

"Congress would still do well to pass HR 1606, the Jeb Hensarling sponsored Online Freedom of Speech Act. There remains precious little reason to think that Congress really intended for the McCain-Feingold law to regulate the web. It is also clear that the FEC would be keeping it's blanket exemption from the statutory definition of 'public communication' for the internet, absent the ruling of a single federal judge that it must regulate the web. And it is clear that none of the horror stories spread by so-called 'reform' groups about HR 1606 have come true in the last 4 years, when the position that HR 1606 would enact has, in fact, been the law pursuant to FEC rules."

I agree with both Mr. Spakovsky and Mr. Smith that, while the FEC rules are minimal, they have placed internet speech under regulation and regulations can be easily changed by another FEC ruling. A law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, is a much stronger protection. As my two previous posts have argued, we still need to pass H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom Of Speech Act.

I intend to keep my Congressman aware of my interest in passing H.R. 1606 as soon as possible. Think about doing the same.

Leveraging Chaos For Order in Iraq?

2006-03-26T20:47:00.000-05:00

There's still a great deal of violence in parts of Iraq, but no signs of civil war in terms of organized armies fighting for control of the country. Much of the chatter about civil war depends on how the term is defined. More interesting is characterizing who is attacking whom to what ends. There is a lot of kidnapping for money and that tracks with the known release of 10,000 criminals by Saddam, making it hard to distinguish criminality from insurgency in some cases.

Strategy Page has another perspective here:

"Deaths from revenge killings now exceed those from terrorist or anti-government activity. Al Qaeda is beaten, and running for cover. The Sunni Arab groups that financed thousands of attacks against the government and coalition groups, are now battling each other, al Qaeda, and Shia death squads. It's not civil war, for there are no battles or grand strategies at play. It's not ethnic cleansing, yet, although many Sunni Arabs are, and have, fled the country. What's happening here is payback. Outsiders tend to forget that, for over three decades, a brutal Sunni Arab dictatorship killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia Arabs. The surviving victims, and the families of those who did not survive, want revenge. .........

For the last three years, the Sunni Arabs thought they could terrorize their way back into power. Didn't work. Now the Kurds and Shia Arabs are not only too strong to defeat, but are coming into Sunni Arab neighborhoods and killing. ....

The government doesn't want all these payback killings, most of them carried out by men working for extremist Shia Arab political parties. In particular, the Badr and Sadr militias, both backed by Iran, have the most blood on their hands .....

The Shia Arab death squads are basically terrorists, and if there's one thing all Iraqis can agree on, it's the need to stamp out the terrorist activity. This is providing the government with an opening against the Iran sponsored militias. Iraqis, even Shia Arab Iraqis, have always been fearful, and suspicious, of Iran. Iraqi Shia Arabs fought against Iran during the 1980s war, not because they loved Saddam, but because they feared Iranian domination. The Sadr and Badr groups are vulnerable in this area, and the government is apparently going to exploit it."

That's certainly an optimistic outlook on the current apparently chaotic violence. If the Iraq government does leverage the situation to move against the Badr and Sadr militias, it would be a very good sign.

Thoughts on Military Casualty Statistics

2006-03-23T15:42:00.000-05:00

In a post on 'War and Peace', Instapundit has stimulated a very interesting discussion about miltary casualty statistics. you can follow the thread of comments there and another at the RedState blog ,which started it all thusly :

"While every lost serviceman and servicewoman is certainly tragic and should be mourned, the actual statistics tell quite a different tale from the MSM and Democratic doom-and-gloom outlook. Comparing the numbers of lost US military personnel to past years, and past presidential terms, may even be a shock to supporters of the war.

Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). ....

In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. Yet the MSM would make you think that US soldiers are dying at a high number in these zones, and at a significantly higher number than in past years or under past presidents. This is all simply outright lies and distortion."

The comments discuss problems with the above comparisons. Some note that the size of the force was much larger in the earlier periods, so the rates per 100,000 are much higher for GWB's period; others note that rates go up as the combat/traing tempo increases or as a smaller force does more; and others cite the improvements in medical care that save many lives among the wounded.

It's easy to do analytic manipulations of these numbers, but that should not detract from a few simple points : first is that lost lives are tragic and the sacrifice is real whether in training or combat; second is that improvements in medical techniques and equipment, as well as training and tactics do save lives; third, the losses are low compared to previous wars and especially so in view of how much is being accomplished; fourth, the media reporting does distort the picture grossly by emphasizing and focusing on a body count with little or no attention to the real achievements in the field.

Another Iraqi Opinion Poll

2006-03-23T14:08:00.000-05:00

I'm not really comfortable with polling as an accurate indicator of Iraqi opinion since it can be strongly infuenced by the selection of respondents from specific areas. But, this poll does address the three main sects and may be a useful rough indicator. My main concern is the small number of Sunni respondents since their opinion is apt to relate closely to region and latest events. For example, the Sunni in Tal Afar would probably be much more optimistic after we cleared out the insurgents there AND established a reliable permanent police presence.

That said, you can find the all the data and methodology for this poll at the World Public Opinion site :
"The majority of Iraqis overall view the recent parliamentary elections as valid, are optimistic that their country is going in the right direction and feel that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been worth the costs. Sunnis, on the other hand, overwhelmingly reject the validity of the elections, see the country going in the wrong direction and regret the overthrow of Saddam.

The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Limited/D3 Systems, Inc. Polling was conducted January 2-5 with a nationwide sample of 1,150, which included an oversample of 150 Arab Sunnis (hereafter simply called Sunnis)."

Kurds and Shia results are similar enough to average together and get 80-85% saying the elections were fair, the new government will be legitimate, and Iraq is going in the right direction; only 5-6% of the Sunni feel that way. While 95% of the Kurd-Shia group say it was worth it to oust Saddam, only 13% of the Sunni feel that way. It's interesting that all groups feel more positive about ousting Saddam than they do about the other questions; even twice as many Sunni express a favorable opinion.

A Key Perspective on Iraq and the Global War on Terror

2006-03-21T20:37:00.000-05:00

There have been many opinions and analysis written about the last three years of the Iraq Campaign. I've read quite a few and have no intention to create yet another. But there is one speech that struck me as both substantitive and straightforward. In his Cleveland speech on the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush conveys the gritty reality of the current campaign, the adaptability and effectiveness of the military, and our nation's accomplishments and challenges - all in the context and importance of this campaign in a major global struggle.

I think every concerned American should read it; but read it not as a Republican or a Democrat, not as a Bush-admirer or a Bush hater, but as an American with an open mind about understanding a vitally important national security issue.

President Bush uses the town of Tal Afar, near the Syran border, as the setting to discusses the impact of the war on Iraqi citizens and the significance of the strategy of clear, hold, and build to them and to us. He does this in simple graphic language that puts you in the scene. He shows how we won; and notes that the town went from only 32,000 citzens daring to vote before we cleared out the terrorists to over 175,ooo afterwards. He emphasizes the statements of the mayor of Tal Afar as further proof of that success, saying:

"One of the most eloquent is the Mayor of Tal Afar, a courageous Iraqi man named Najim. Mayor Najim arrived in the city in the midst of the al Qaeda occupation, and he knows exactly what our troops have helped accomplish. He calls our men and women in uniform "lion-hearts," and in a letter to the troopers of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, he spoke of a friendship sealed in blood and sacrifice."

He continues by summarizing the state of Iraq campaign and putting it in the context of a global struggle against an dangerous ideology, comparable to our earlier struggles agains fascism and communism. He says it better than I can, so the rest is from the President :

"The last three years have tested our resolve. The fighting has been tough. The enemy we face has proved to be brutal and relentless. We're adapting our approach to reflect the hard realities on the ground. And the sacrifice being made by our young men and women who wear our uniform has been heartening and inspiring.

The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali, or workers in Riyadh, or guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. In the war on terror we face a global enemy -- and if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and trying to kill Americans across the world and within our own borders. Against this enemy, there can be no compromise. So we will fight them in Iraq, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

In the long run, the best way to defeat this enemy and to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed. And today, Germany and Japan are democracies -- and they are allies in securing the peace. In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Central and Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. And today, these nations are strong allies in the war on terror.

In the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated. Freedom will prevail in Iraq; freedom will prevail in the Middle East; and as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have not known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.

The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people -- and we will settle for nothing less than victory. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their citizens on their own, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation. There will be more days of sacrifice and tough fighting before the victory is achieved. Yet by helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land, we bring greater security to our own.

As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take more responsibility for their own security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. But it's important for the Iraqis to hear this: The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again. We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position of strength, not weakness. Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now."

Read it all, including the question & answer session.

Getting Perspective on Iraq and Terrorism Data

2006-03-18T14:05:00.000-05:00

An earlier post, here and on my R3Blog , generated a comment about the Oxford Research International poll that produced the Iraqi opinion statistics used in the article. We agree that the poll was positive, but the comment asks for more detailed demographic breakout data. Since I don't have any more information than is available at Oxford or the BBC, I thought I'd mention a blogger who is much more knowledgeable about polls and polling techniques and has some interesting data about terrorism.

D.J.Drummond posts extensively on these topics on the PoliPundit and Stolen Thunder blogs. He has begun a Stolen Thunder series onBlood and Bigotry . This excerpt from Part 2 of the series develops a very interesting insight from available data:

"According to the Terrorism Knowledge Base, since the September 11th attacks 45.6% of all terrorist attacks have happened in the Middle East and 57.7% of all fatalities from such attacks (here). North America has only received 0.5% of the attacks and 0.04% of the fatalities. Even Western Europe has only suffered 10.6% of the attacks, and only 1.4% of the fatalities. Only 2.17% of terrorist attacks have been against military targets in that time, while 2.53% of the attacks have been terrorists attacking other terrorist groups. 17.69% of the attacks have been attempts to destabilize governments, with 12.27% against private businesses, 7.34% against police and 6.02% against transportation, like buses and trains.

What this means in plain English, is that the terrorists are attacking Arabs more often than Americans, and civilians much more often than police. The terrorists are trying to destabilize Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt, far more than they are doing anything in France or England or Spain, no matter what we see on TV. The terrorists are worried about the Iraqi Army and Police, and about regular people. One must consider the import of that fact."

I think that's an interesting insight; it's important to keep a broad perspective of events to understand an enemy's intentions and strategy as well as his real strength or weakness.

Freedom of Speech is a "Loophole"??

2006-03-15T15:05:00.000-05:00

The New York Times editorial page expresses great outrage over the prospect that ordinary citizens and bloggers could be allowed to speak their mind about politics prior to an election. This ability, which most of us thought was protected by the First Ammendment, is endangered by a recent court interpretation of the Campaign Finance Law. Since the court interpretation is seen by many as not following the will of Congress when it enacted the legislation, the Congress is doing it's duty by stating it's intentions more clearly in new legislation that has strong bi-partisan backing. Up for a vote this week is House Bill HR1606, aptly named 'The Online Freedom of Speech Act'.

But where the Congress and I see freedom, the NYT sees anInternet Campaign Loophole ; ranting that: " For all the avowals to put the brakes on ethical lapses, the House is showing its true colors with an attempt to turn the Internet into a free-flowing big-money trough for uncontrolled political spending."

The editorial is full of overblown and false rhetoric. I could pick it apart, but that's already been done here very well here , and here .

So, I'll content myself with noting that the NYT starts it's rant with a concern about "big-money" "free-flowing" on the Internet. Now that's clearly a false statement about HR1606; but it's probably true that the NYT fears the loss of some "big-money" without it's monopoly on political speech when it counts most. ( Congressman Jack Kingston share that view in his Blog post on "Elitist Media v. Bloggers: H.R.1606").

Getting The Rest of The Iraq Story

2006-03-15T13:57:00.000-05:00

Wondering if you are getting both sides of the story in Iraq ? Try this article by Richard Nadler in NRO . It's full of interesting facts presented by some smart articulate ex- military folks.

You can learn about things like increases in electrical supply, doubling of oil revenues, enormous increases in cell phones, cars, and satellite TVs; as well as a 60 percent decline of infant mortality and improved access to schooling and medical care. All happening now in post-Saddam Iraq and discussed by Lt. Indyk, returned from a tour in Iraq.

And there's former Corporal Gibson talking about how, in 6 months in 2005, the number of civilian tips informing on insurgents increased from 483 to 4,700, as numerous Sunni tribes declared outright war on al Qaeda. In Gibson's words - "The insurgency in Iraq is being dismantled by the equivalent of a Tips hotline."

A key point about modern information warfare is made by former Marine Sergeant and combat reporter J. D. Johannes - "Everyone knows that the history of war is written by the victors. But the war in Iraq has shattered that truism. In Iraq, history is being written by the losers. Baathist kidnappers and jihadist bombers are planning their operations not to win the war in Iraq, but to win it in America. To that end, they are assessing what American news organizations are willing to cover, and what American reporters are willing to risk. As an immediate result, many of the feeds on the nightly news are coming from Arabic sources that are either non-professional in their journalistic standards or hostile to American policy aims. As a long-term result, the American public is broadly misinformed on a war that Coalition arms and Iraqi democrats are, in fact, winning."

Read the article. If you want to see and hear more from these men, check this post to Watch Some TV and Feel Really Good.

What You Can't Read and Where It May Lead

2006-03-12T19:14:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, this is not about the prudish or puritanical; it's about the politically correct and fearful press - and a creeping self-censorship virus that seems to have gone critical in the UK and may in the US.

Start with the UK and this report that : "Mark Steyn’s column is no longer available in the British press; according to the Guardian’s Lionel Shriver, Steyn has now been dropped from both the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator. And there’s very little doubt that it’s because of his clear-headed, uncompromising writing about Islam."

Perhaps, some are concerned about how Steyn is willing to speak bluntly about current events like the UNC "Road Rage(?)" incident in which a Muslim graduate attempted to run down students in a rented car. In this recent article, Steyn asserts that the (US) media is shockingly ignorant of Muslims among us:
"According to statements taken by the police, Mr. Taheri-azar, 22, an Iranian-born graduate of the university, felt that the United States government had been 'killing his people across the sea' and that his actions reflected 'an eye for an eye.' ..... Taheri-azar is admirably upfront about his actions. As he told police, he wanted to 'avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world.'

And yet the M-word appears nowhere in the Times report. Whether intentionally or not, they seem to be channeling the great Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali, who died a millennium ago but whose first rule on the conduct of dhimmis -- non-Muslims in Muslim society -- seem to have been taken on board by the Western media:

The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle. . . .

Are they teaching that at Columbia Journalism School yet?"

Both the UK and US major media press have refused to print copies of the "Danish Cartoons" on the grounds that they did not wish to inflame tensions ( of course, printing text and photos on "abuse" at abu Ghraib was fair game). What messgae does this self-censoring behavior send?

According to one educated view from the UK it's leading to the day when British Muslims form a state within a state: "'It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent.'

Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that 'in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.

'It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue.'"

Dr Sookhdeo believes Western leaders fail to understand that many Islamic clerics believe they are locked in mortal combat with secularism and that they are following a deliberate plan to achieve dominance for their religion in Western nations: "For example, one of the fundamental notions of a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice. But in Islam, choice is not allowable ... . God has laid down the law, and man must obey. ...

In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate. Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, ... so on."

Dr Sookhdeo believes that plan: " is being followed in Britain. "That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them sharia law."

To counter this trend : "You have to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and their self-appointed leaders," explains Dr Sookhdeo. ..... "First, it (Government) should try to engage with the real Muslim majority, not with the self-appointed 'community leaders' who don't actually represent anyone: they have not been elected, and the vast majority of ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with them. ......
"Second, ...there should be no compromise over education, or over English as the language of education. ....
Finally, the Government should make it absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions - but all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society. That is a non-negotiable condition of being here."

Even if you don't agree with everything Dr Sookhdeo says, his Three Points of Action strike me as a very wise course for the UK government to follow. And I hope the US will pursue a similar course. Our strength comes from immigrants that have united in a single national identity. Let's reinforce that strength.

Muslims Speak Out - 2 Cases

2006-03-11T15:37:00.000-05:00

It's common to hear calls for Muslims to speak out against the violence being waged in the name of Islam. It's rare when one does. Dr. Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, is a brave person who has gone on Arabic TV with her message that violence and extremists are distorting her religion. She deserves a lot of credit for doing so, and ,for telling her story, so does the New York Times:

"Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries. ..........

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

......

"She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.""

That view may not be held by many other Muslims, at least not in public. According to another article in the same issue of the NYT, the Danish Foreign Ministry sponsored a conference with Muslims to improve relations but seemed to get only expressions of Anger and Hope:

"the conference prominently featured Amr Khaled, a 38-year-old preacher from Egypt who .... sought to emphasize that 'we are here to build bridges for dialogue,' and suggested that a continuing boycott of Danish goods in Arab countries could stop if Danes and their government reached out with initiatives like help for small businesses, or health care.

Other participants were less conciliatory.

'We are here today, because we want to tell you that every Muslim in the world is very angry,' said Tareq Alsuwaidan, general manager of the Kuwaiti satellite channel Al Resalah.

'We request an official apology from your government to the Muslim nation as it happened in Norway,' he said. He also demanded that the European Union enact a law 'that forbids the insult to religious figures.'"
.........

"Sheikh Youssef el-Qardawi, 79, who is based in Qatar and is host of a weekly show on Al Jazeera television, said the trip to Copenhagen looked like surrender. "You have to have a common ground to have a dialogue with your enemy," he said on Al Jazeera. "But after insulting what is sacred to me, they should apologize.""

I didn't find much "Hope" in the article. Unless it was the hope that the Danes would offer concessions and rewards for bad behavior. That seems to be the primary theme emeging from most such meetings. I suppose that's preferable to the death threats that Dr. Sultan got for expressing her views.

Mid-East - Panic or Perspective ?

2006-03-10T10:38:00.000-05:00

Some pundits and commentators read the political tea leaves and think we are in danger of a stampede away from Iraq. Not an unrealistic fear given the latest barrage of negative publicity about the UAE ports deal, recent polls about Bush and soldier attitudes in Iraq ( even though both are extremely unreliable), and the Congressional actions on the ports deal and NSA (both of which seem to reflect a need for image over substance.) With elections coming up, Republicans are showing signs of confusion about how to stake out an electable position seperate from the President's position. Politicians tend to have good survival instincts and an ear to their public. They also tend to have very short time horizons are can panic when hearing a lot of uncertainty from their constituents.

I don't think it's panic time yet; but it is time to regain the perspective to avoid future panic. It's important to spread the information for a balanced perspective about what we are doing in Iraq and the Mid-East and what the real costs , gains and dangers are. To that end, Victor Davis Hanson's latest essay, The Great Stampede, is worth reading in full at National Review Online; some key excerpts follow:

"For all the tragedy of our fallen in Iraq, if a constitutional government stabilizes in Baghdad, and liberalization follows in the surrounding region, then our losses will not be measured against the far lighter casualties suffered in Panama, Gulf War I, or Grenada, but against the far worse losses of Korea and World War II. ......

The World Beyond
Things abroad simply are not worse after March 2003. Europe is again growing closer to the United States, in part due to its fright after the French rioting, the Danish cartoons, and murders in the Netherlands. Its multilateral alternative to the United States is in retreat, as we see from the humiliating negotiations with Iran, Hamas, and the Russians.

India and Pakistan are closer to us now than before Iraq. China is China; Japan is a military ally as never before. England and Australia are strategic partners; Canada and New Zealand are similarly beginning to follow a wiser course. The world is catching on to Iran, and the theocracy must subvert the new Iraqi democracy or itself be undermined by the nearby democratic experiment.

There is, of course, heightened anti-Americanism in places, but it is largely confined to specific areas. The Middle East Street resents deeply the humiliation of seeing Muslim leaders so easily dethroned. The European cafés abhor the spread of American popular culture and muscle, and are starting to recoil in shock that the world did not turn out to follow the rules of the Hague or the EU charter. And then there is the trans-Atlantic elite, who, after calling for three decades for a more principled American policy, finally got it in spades — but splattered with all the gore and mess that such radical changes always entail.

The Military
Yet another misconception concerns the U.S. military. Almost all the latest grievances against it have proven to be mostly hype. It is meeting its recruiting goals. In the heart of the ancient caliphate, with great sensitivity and tact, it has trained ten Iraqi divisions, after removing a 30-year old fascistic dictatorship with dispatch. If America’s was already the best equipped and disciplined military in the world, it is now also the most savvy and experienced in precisely the sort of asymmetrical war our pundits worry threaten our future. In all the post facto, self-serving, tell-all books by our ex-intelligence agents and diplomats, it is high-ranking military officers who usually escape censure."

Hanson's Bottom Line stikes a cautionary note : "So here we are — close to victory abroad, closer to concession at home." We've been here before, but never before did we have the ability to reach so many with a message of perspective and encouragement.

Rewriting Very Recent History

2006-03-09T19:29:00.000-05:00

I think the major media are responsible for a lot of our national image problems worldwide. I've ascribed this to underlying partisan bias and a need to justify group-think about the desirability of always being anti-war. A recent poll showing growing disapproval of Islam struck me as a natural - though unintended - by-product of the media's constant barrage of Islamist bombings and terrorist attacks in Iraq.

I say unintended because I believe the media goal is to arouse anti-war emotions leading to renunciation of the Bush Administration and It's War. The poll suggests an opposite reaction by Americans. But the the damage may well continue in the rest of the world - and that will be a problem for us all in the future.

The Powerline Blog has a interestingly take on the subject that illuminates how the media's inherent biases drive it into actively Rewriting Very Recent History: "This is basically a dog-bites-man story; the Washington Post reports on its poll showing that a growing number of Americans express disapproval of Islam, and a majority now say there are more violent extremists among Muslims than other religions. The Post could have attributed these findings to the fact that lots of people follow the news."
.....
"What I really wanted to comment on, though, was this sentence near the beginning of the Post's article:

The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.

That's a false statement. In fact, the restraint that Americans showed in the months after September 11 in not blaming American Muslims for the attacks, let alone carrying out violent attacks on them, was remarkable. Nevertheless, what we're seeing here is history being rewritten. In a few years, it will be commonplace for books, newspapers, magazines and television broadcasts to record as a "fact" that after September 11, "Muslims were often targeted for violence." And I'm afraid that's what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school, regardless of the actual facts."

The following excerpt covers a readers exchanges with the Washington Post reporter. It is fascinating to read; the reporter seems to be totally unaware of how badly he is rewriting history, much less of the impact of his ignorance. The fact that it was published shows considerable editorial irresponsibility as well. So, back to PowerLine :

"It's an interesting window into the thinking of at least one Post reporter:

I emailed the authors with this:
You have your facts wrong. Muslims were not "often targeted for violence" after September 11. In fact, there were remarkably few incidents. By any reasonable definition of "often" you are wrong.

Darryl Fears responded back with this:

Mr. Hanlon, I write about immigration and race, and I covered the incidents. There were thousands of incidents, compiled by both the FBI and by Arab agencies that were deluged with phone calls from people too afraid to call police. Even Indian Sikhs who are not Muslim were beaten bloody. The president saw this and gave a speech and urged calm, which helped. Those are the facts, and they're not very hard to find. - Darryl Fears

And I responded to him with this. He did not reply:

The FBI compiled thousands of incidents? Or the FBI compiled a handful and Arab agencies were deluged with phone calls? They are significantly different. You're making up history, as you want it to be, not as it happened.

The FBI certainly didn't compile a list of thousands of incidents of violence; neither did the Justice Department. The number of incidents that actually involved violence was tiny, in a nation of almost 300 million people. I find it noteworthy, too, that according to the FBI, "anti-Islamic incidents" (both violent and non-violent) jumped in 2001 to "a total of 481 episodes, second only to anti-Jewish incidents which totaled 1043." No doubt the Post will soon be reporting that Jews in America are "often targeted for violence."

Or, more simply, the Post will be able to report that Muslims hold an unfavorable view of the US, making it easier for the Islamists to recruit terrorist candidates.

Watch Some TV and Feel Really Good

2006-03-09T18:30:00.000-05:00

Care to see some super TV spots about the war in Iraq? Want to feel good about America and what it's doing in and for the World? If you do, then there are eight TV spots you will love.

You can't see them on major media, but you can view them at Americas Majority - TV Ads & Videos . The eight 30 second spots feature real people, American citizens who served in our military forces in Iraq, telling the good news skinny with all the polish, conciseness and impact of the best of professional TV spots.

They are all great and it's a tough challenge is find your favorites. My two favorites are "In 30 Seconds", that use that time to give the most compelling straight-forward explanation of our mission in Iraq that I've ever seen; and "Constitution" that makes you see what's really been accomplished.

Check them out and pick your favorites - there are no wrong answers or losers here. Then tell your friends about them. Get some folks to see and hear these statements about America from Americans who cared enough to do something and are articulate enough to tell us why it matters.