According to the Senator for Illinois, now the Iraq war is a “dangerous distraction” from the “real” war, which is in Afghanistan. I am really curious why there is such a focus on the geography of where the combat operations are taking place, instead of focusing on what the combat operations are accomplishing. In Afghanistan, there is a resurgence of Taliban activity as they attempt to re-take the country and instill their oppressive way of life on the population. However, only an idiot would see Iraq as being any different.

Looking at some of Senator Obama’s recent remarks as he further refines his policy on Iraq - which is no being reported he will do before he goes to Iraq (myrrh?) - I can clearly see that leftist policy will cloud any sense of reason on Iraq.

“As should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. [John] McCain — the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was,”

As should have been apparent to Barak Obama, the war on terror is not about “did someone attack the United States”. That is an extremely isolationist view of foreign policy, to say the least. It is about stopping terrorism.

Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists, paying terrorists’ family $25,000 for blowing up Jews, courting people would would benefit a great deal from gaining WMD technology or WMD agents. And these are just the things which are not in debate by anyone but the nutters. Iraq was involved in terrorism at home, in the region, and planning or cooperating with such activities in Europe and other places according to any seriously accepted analysis on the topic. My bet is that the Iraqi people see Iraq as being the central front in the war on terror, as the Islamo-fascists bomb their markets and kidnap their loved ones in order to instill their oppressive way of life on the population. Again, only an idiot would see it any differently.

Pointing to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s recent call for a timetable, Obama said “now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq’s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.”

Obama said he planned to remove combat brigades from Iraq by the summer of 2010. He also said he would send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan.

Pointing to PM Maliki’s recent call for a timetable - which they have since backed off from a great deal - Obama should be saying, “I fully agree with President Bush’s plan to have troops beginning to demobilize and come home toward the end of 2009 or beginning of 2010, if the situation on the ground warrants it.” As Jimmie Bise mentioned last week on The Joel Gaines Show, Barak Obama is finally accepting the Bush plan for an ideal situation regarding how many troops are deployed in Iraq - as the president stated more than 6 months ago.

“By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.”

Obama blasted the Bush administration for missed opportunities in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11,” he said.

Senator Obama seems to have forgotten that we have not been attacked since 9/11, even though dozens of attacks have been foiled while either still in their planning stages or just prior to the attempts to carry them out. We should not forget, however, we partially have Senator Obama to thank for that - as he changed his tune on FISA and immunity for the telecom companies who help us, so we can obtain the kind of intelligence we need to continue to thwart attacks on America.

Barney Frank, House Financial Services Chairman, has recently shown his utter lack of concern for the American military person in Iraq. That is the only conclusion you could possibly come to with his announcement that he will defund the Iraq war under a Democratic president.

“I will move to cut funding immediately,” said Frank. “I have already done that. I voted against the war and voted to cut the funding. I would hope a Democratic president would put in place a plan that would begin a total withdrawal.”

Irrespective of the complete geopolitical disaster this would cause in the Middle East in general, and the chaos that would ensue in Iraq with Frank’s “immediate withdrawal”, the impact on the American military would be catastrophic. Any cuts in funding, prior to the intended consequence of forcing the generals to withdraw forces, would impact the ability of our military folks in Iraq to protect themselves as units become forced to do more with less. Money currently used to make life bearable - movies, phone calls, the occasional fast food  run, computer services, etc.  - those things would disappear first. The ability to spread goodwill in the neighborhoods through the use of toys, soccer balls, candy, books, shoes, and other community project items will remove the potential for our soldiers to be anything other than armed occupiers. Today, they can also help build community.

Barney Frank sits in Washington and looks down from Mt Olympus at Iraq and makes decisions without any thought to how those decisions impact anything except his sense of how things should be. This elitist moron needs to find something else to occupy his mind. I suggest he take up crochet and leave the serious business of war and peace to the professionals.

Set aside the pre-war statements by prominent Democrats about the need for regime change in Iraq. Set aside, the post invasion castigation of our “reasons for the war”. Set aside the attacks by prominent Democrats on our military. They attack using every angle of their geopolitical virtual reality as possible.

The simple truth is the leftists in America will not be disabused of their silly positions on Iraq by the facts.

But Democrats said President George W. Bush, who began the war five years ago and who will leave office in January with more than 100,000 troops still there, was failing to focus on the bigger threat of al Qaeda from the Afghan-Pakistan border.

“Protecting this nation from direct attack is job number one, yet our allocation of forces does not match this imperative,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Armed Services Committee.

The implication is the Iraq is detracting the US from the threat of terror attacks in the US. Really?

• Jose Padilla was interdicted at O’Hare airport - we was returning from Pakistan and had been recently messing about with nuclear materials.
• The Lakawanna  Six were apprehended for plotting an attack after having trained in Pakistan with AQ.
• Eleven men - four of whom plead guilty - were apprehended in Virginia for working with AQ and the Taliban.
• Dhiren Barot was apprehended for plotting to blow up major financial institutions, including the NYSE, after training in Pakistan.
•  James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj were arrested for plotting to bomb a subway station in New York City.
•  Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat were arrestedafter the Hamid’s attendance at an Islamic terrorist training camp in Pakistan.
• Assem Hammoud, an al-Qaeda loyalist living in Lebanon, and others, was arrested for plotting to bomb the New York City train tunnels.
• A plot to blow fuel pipelines that runs through residential neighborhoods at the Kennedy International Airport in New York City was foiled.

Combine your knowledge of these instances with the simple fact that NO terrorist attacks have occurred on US soil since the invasion of Iraq. Add, as a seasoning if you will, the fact that AQ had a substantial subsidiary operation in Iraq. That AQ found it more desirable to attack US forces in the Middle East than to attack the US itself.

If the Democrats were serious about securing America from the potential of terrorist attacks, they would be more active in securing the borders. They are simply posing yet another childish “Nya!” to something they philosophically have no ability to understand.

As the violence dwindles in Southern Iraq, the United States is ostensibly pleased with the performance of Iraqi forces in dealing with the recent Sadrist uprising. The Iraqi government is ostensibly pleased with their ability to respond with appropriate force and to stand up on their own in this crisis.

I said ostensibly. The truth of the matter is the real winner of the recent events in Southern Iraq is Iran - although again, it is ostensibly Muqtada al-Sadr.

Yes, Iraqi government forces responded well and the results of unequaled training, along with a more ecumenical devotion to a unified nation, is evident in the performance of Iraqi forces - although they still have a way to go. Iran gaining victory has nothing to do with military prowess, nor with the willingness of Iraqis to defend Iraq’s emergence as a viable government.

Al-Sadr himself has acknowledged there are many groups which have split off from his personal control. While he is in Iraq, speaking as Muqtada al-Sadr, his influence is limited - much like a local mob captain. However, you must note that he is in Iran now for some “special religious training”. Though his followers have not seen him for many weeks, not only does he have the ability to influence their actions on a broad scale, he has the ability to influence the activities of many of those “break away” groups as well.  His followers understand that his presence and training in Iran is not a coincidence. In a theocracy, an invitation to take special religious training is a huge, ostentatious vote of confidence. The ability of al-Sadr - little more than an upstart at the beginning of this war - to stop the violence by issuing a proclamation is a large feat. Al-Sadr has definitely been given a big Shi’ite promotion.

Iran was able to gain victory because the power of the Iranian theocracy, with al-Sadr as the conduit, was the sole reason for the ending of hostilities. The fighting in Basra is over because Tehran wished it to be.

I don’t do book reviews.  I leave that to smart people.  However, I do spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is going on in the world around us. 

This week we have seen another phase of the war in Iraq.  The Iraqi military is attempting to assert its influence and regain control of the country.  We are going to be able to see pretty soon if the training and equipping we have done were enough and whether there is the political will by the Iraqi government to enforce its sovereignty over its territory.  Our forces are still there in a supporting role but it appears that a decision has been made to try to allow the Iraqis to take the lead.  When they are able to do this, we can realistically start talking about our forces coming home. 

While I was in law school I did not have much time to read about how we got to the position we are in with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq.  I think it is important to understand this because we are on the verge of electing a new president and new members of Congress.  Much of the political debate this year will concern what mistakes were made and what we should do in the future.  Much, if not all, of the commentary will be politically biased.  A great deal of the discourse will come from people who don’t know what they are talking about and who don’t think you are smart enough to find out for yourself; the old “Trust me, I will solve the problem” approach to politics.

It is interesting that histories of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are being written so soon.  In past wars we had reporter accounts created during the war but it generally took twenty years or so before the substantive histories were written.  Thankfully, that is no longer the case.  Now it seems that everyone has at least one personal computer, a good word processor program and we have the Internet to spread the word. 

I think it is great that we can understand how our national policies are formed in such a current fashion so that we can actively engage our political leadership to reflect the views of the American citizens.  However, it puts the responsibility on each of us to be accurately informed and not depend on the media commentators and various news sources to digest our history for us and only give us the information they want us to have.

I recently had the opportunity to read several books which provide a lot of insight and useful information to help me better understand what happened in the decision making process at the national level in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11.  If you are as concerned about our national security as I am, you might want to spend a little time gathering facts about what really happened.

If you decide to read these books, please remember that each of the authors and editors writes and publishes these books from their own perspective; they were participants and they have a story they want to tell.  Historians apply the filters of history to produce their works.  The products are different.  Don’t take any single source of information as the gospel.  However, these three books serve as a good basis for understanding much of what has happened in the last six years with regard to our national response to the September 11 attacks.  I am sure there are many others and you might choose to enlighten me about what you have read as well.  I will take a look at whatever you recommend.

I have included links to reviews that present contrasting views of the books.  This clearly shows that there are widely varying opinions on what the “facts” really are.  Also one more note:  Don’t read Cobra II if you are not ready to admit that George Bush’s administration and our military leadership have made mistakes in the conduct of the war.  Cobra II is the best of the three books but you will probably be disappointed, frustrated or outraged that many of the mistakes described in the book were allowed to happen.

 Here are links to reviews on three books I think are important to understanding how we got to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan:

1.      American Soldier, by Tommy Franks, HarperCollins/Regan Books, 2004. $27.95. 

Review located at:

·        http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/229.asp and

·        http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/0060731583.asp and

·        http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/franks1.html

2.      At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the C.I.A. By George Tenet with Bill Harlow, HarperCollins, 2007. $30.

Review located at:

·        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/books/28kaku.html?_r=1&ref=books/oAn%20Ex-C.I.A.%20Chief%20on%20Iraq%20and%20the%20Slam%20Dunk%20That%20Wasn%92t/t_blank&oref=slogin

·        http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVjNjgyOGZiYzBlMzFlYTM3YTg4OGQ3NTBhYjc4NjQ=

·        http://www.dougfeith.com/coverage_6.html

3.      Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, Random House, 2006. $27.95

Review located at:

·        http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200604170810.asp

·        http://www.powells.com/review/2006_04_20.html

·        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/books/review/30heilbrun.html?ex=1304049600&en=ffc80747ae84f966&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.

Benny

I have written about Saddam’s regime being a state-sponsor of terrorism several times over the past 6 years. However, there is a fairly new report out, which details the evidence of his ties to terrorism, and his regime’s direct terror operations, based upon analysis of the millions of documents found in Iraq since the 2003 US-led invasion.

Here is an extract from the report relating to a Fedayeen Saddam response to orders from Uday Hussein that terror operations abroad be taken against Iraqi exiles.

Extract 1
[May 1999]
My respects and regards, sir:
Referr[ing] to your Excellency’s orders on the days of 20-25 May 1999, to
start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinationslbombings)
in the centers of the traitors’ symbols in the fields of LondonlIranJself-
ruled areas, and for coordination with the Intelligence service
to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance.
[Continued]
1
The classification markings are original to the Iraqi documents and do not reflect current u.s. classification.
[Continued}
I would also like to go over here the orders that were issued by you during
the first and second meetings with your Excellency, which lay the groundwork
for the success of these operations.
Codename of the special operations is BLESSED JULY
The duties will be divided into two branches, which are:
A- Bombings
B - Assassinations
The execution order for Jordan is canceled.
Reminding members who are captured in the European area to use
death capsules on themselves.
Execution Steps:
Select 50 Fedayeen martyrs according to the required specifications.
Admit them to the Intelligence School to prepare them for their
duties.
After passing their tests they will be selected for their targets as
follows:
The top ten will work in the European field - London.
The second ten will work in the Iranian field.
The third ten will work in the self-ruled [Kurdish] area.
After passing the [mal test the Fedayeen will be sent as undercover passengers,
each one according to his work site.

This is clearly instructions for a black operation abroad, and inside Iraq as well.  However, there is a great deal more happening in Iraq during the 12 years leading up to the Iraq war.

Here is a Iraqi Intelligence Service response to Saddam's request to know what weapons Iraq had cached overseas.

Extract 2
[July 2002]
Subject: Weapons Information:
1. We would like to inform you of the following:
Romania - Missile launcher and missile
Athens [Greece] - Explosive charges
Vienna [Austria] - Explosive charges, rifles with silencers, hand grenades,
and Kalashnikov rifles
Pakistan - Explosive materials ofTNT
India - Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Thailand - Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Prague [Czech] - Missile launcher and missile
Turkey - Missile launcher, missile, and pistols with silencers
Sana’a [Yemen] - Missile launcher, missile, plastic explosives and explosive
charges
Baku [Azerbaijan] - American missile launcher, plastic explosives and
booby-trapped suitcases
Beirut [Lebanon] - American missile launcher, plastic explosives and
booby-trapped suitcases
Gulf nations - Explosive material outside the embassies
2. Between the year 2000 and 2002 … explosive materials were transported to
the embassies outside Iraq for special work, upon the approval of the Director
of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The responsibility for these materials is in the
hands of heads of stations. Some of these materials were transported in the political
mail carriers [Diplomatic Pouch]. Some of these materials were transported
by car in booby-trapped briefcases.

How about Saddam’s program to standardize, certify, and train the use of explosives?

In addition to supplying arms to Iraq’s overseas missions, the lIS
managed a research and production capability for high-technology bombs, components,
and silencers. In a series of memoranda dated 4 September 1999, various
elements of the lIS report on coordinating the production, testing, and delivery of a sophisticated car bomb using military-grade explosives. Brief summaries of four
documents in particular capture the almost routine process surrounding the manufacture
of car bombs:
1. A request from lIS Section 27 to lIS Directorate 6 for 40 kilograms of
RDX, primer-cord, advanced detonators and other materials. 14
2. An approval memorandum from lIS Directorate 4 to Section 27 to load
a vehicle with 50 to 75 kilograms of explosive material and provide to
the At Ta’mim Intelligence Branch [M52] for a “special duty.,,15
3. A follow-up memorandum from the senior engineer for lIS Section 27
to his director confirming that his Top Secret-Confidential-andUrgent
job number 2/1999/20 has been completed. The memorandum
included such details as the final explosive charge weight (56 kilograms),
and the fact that the device had a 30-minute electronic timer
and came equipped with a hidden safety switch. The explosives were
disguised as washing detergent packets and the detonator was hidden
in a pack of cigarettes. Finally, the engineer notes that the “abovementioned
bombs” were delivered to the “beneficiary representative”
[an lIS agent] according to the “special forms” with a “full explanation
about the detonating method, storing, and transportation.”
4. To complete the car bomb task, the lIS staff officer includes a collection
of “special forms” as part of the mission documentation. For example:
a. The Duty Assignment Confirmation Form where the engineer and
the lIS agent account for the exchange,
b. The Inspection Certificate Form that verifies the car bomb meets
chemical, electrical, and mechanical standards and is “ready to
execute the duty.”
c. A Duty Delivery Form that certifies the training of the operator and
provides the bomb warranty as good for “only one month from
date of delivery” as well as a recommendation that they use a
Duracell battery instead of an everyday version “for the impor-
tance of the duty.”

Or maybe Saddam’s order to create suicide operations as a regular part of his regime’s arsenal well prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Extract 6.
[ca. 17-19 September 2001]
Presidency of the Republic
The General Military Intelligence Directorate

We refer to the top secret letter of the Military Intelligence Command of 6
and the top secret letter of the Military Branch Command of Baghdad of
Sept 2001. The section command discussed a meeting held on 2 Sept 2001
28 August 2001, which stated that the Division Commands should launch a
campaign among their members, supporters, and backers of the Party encouraging
them to volunteer in suicide operations, and have them write
volunteer statements, preferably III theIr blood

Beyond these extracts, there is evidence in the report of Saddam’s material and logistical support for foreign terror groups, including training camps in Iraq. Read the report.

I know I have said this 1000 times in the last 7 years, but if you take the leftist message on any given topic to its furthest logical conclusion, you end up in a circle.

Robert Scheer writes in the San Francisco Chronicle,

Are the media dumb or just out to lunch? Sorry to be intemperate, but how else can one explain the meager attention paid to the truly historic visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Iraq? Not only is he the first Mideast head of state to visit the country since its alleged liberation, but the very warm official welcome offered by the Iraqi government to the most vociferous critic of the United States speaks volumes to the abject failure of the Bush doctrine.

In that the “Bush doctrine” has been to have to beg the Democrats in congress to pass spending legislation that supports increased military activity in Iraq. Or that generals have to sit before one hostile congressional committee after another and listen to Democrats rail against the every effort to create stability in Iraq. Maybe it’s the way the Democrats have increased the ability of Ahmedinajad to show his face, not only in Iraq, but in the United States by allowing a highly political NIE to deter a hard-line diplomatic tone against ” the most vociferous critic of the United States”. Maybe it is all of those calls for the United States to take a “wait and see” attitude toward those who want to kill us - even those sponsored by Iran.

If we fail in Iraq it won’t be because we have not been dynamic enough. It won’t be because we have not learned how to handle situations which crop up from an invasion of a hostile nation and applied those as lessons-learned with a resultant success. If we fail, it won’t be because we didn’t recognize mistakes and take necessary action to resolve them. If we fail, it is not because we did not employ the very best strategists and tacticians this country has at its disposal.

The failure, sir, is not George W Bush’s. It is the failure of the leftists in this country to identify who the true enemies of the United States are. It is the failure of the leftists in this country to understand that we cannot simply talk our enemies into submission. It is the failure of the leftists in this country to support the destruction of those who will turn the clock back 13 centuries, while also spewing forth about how “progressive” they are. Those same leftists believe we can talk to anyone and get them to see things our way because they have just never heard the arguments made in the intelligent manner that only an elitist left-winger can convey things. If we fail, it will be because leftists in this country will do anything to ensure that America is always seen as the “culprit” in anything that happens in the world.

You leftists bought the duration of this war by your resistance to doing what is necessary. If we fail in Iraq, you’ll own that too and for the same reason.

There was a great deal of western concern spent over whether Iraq would become a country where religious considerations would trump democracy. There was also a lot of concern that democracy would trample religion. I think the Iraqi parliament’s most recent decision is an example of people trying to find that middle ground.

 BAGHDAD - Iraq’s parliament on Tuesday passed a law to change the Saddam Hussein-era flag, meeting the demands of Iraq’s Kurdish minority who threatened not to fly the banner during a pan-Arab meeting in the Kurdish-run north next month.

The measure, which expires in one year, was approved by show of hands, with 110 lawmakers of 165 present voting in favor of removing the three stars and changing the calligraphy of the words “Allahu Akbar” in a symbolic break with the past.

The Kurds’ contention is they were persecuted under the Saddam era banner, and feel strongly about taking part in a government which asks for allegiance to it.

This is a comforting sign.

Iraqis took to the streets to ring in 2008.

Photo: AFP

FIRECRACKERS and machine-gun fire echoed over the Iraqi capital hours before midnight on Monday as partygoers put aside fears of suicide bombers and gunmen to bring in the new year.

Young men in fashionably ripped jeans and gelled hair crowded into restaurants and parties, some carrying black plastic bags hiding cans of beer.

I hope 2008 brings them peace and stability.