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 just want to say thank you. I believe in you and I believe in your mission.

God Bless you and keep you safe.

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.

Obama: “I always reserve the right for the president … to make sure that we are looking out for American interests,” Obama said. “And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”

As long as that president isn’t George W Bush.

McCain: “I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It’s called al Qaeda in Iraq,” McCain said.

 ”It’s a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base — where they have already established a base.”

 Obama:  “But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

Ah - well this brings up two points.

Bin Laden’s Justice Department indictment specifically states - despite the 9/11 Commissio’s white wash - Al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam’s government based upon an agreement that Al Qaeda would not work against the Iraqi government and would assist on certain specific projects Iraq was involved in - assuredly with regards to support of Hizb’allah. This went back to the time when Bin Laden was in exile in Sudan prior to moving his base of operations to Afghanistan. Al Qaeda may not have been a fighting force in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq, but they would not have had anyone to fight there, now would they?

Al Qaeda was in New York and Washington DC “until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.” They have not - apparently -been back since.

It is interesting how Obama seems to gain points for making inane promises of military might he does not espouse, and then also be able to gain points for making inane anti-war proclamations which reflect a false sense of history and a proven failed approach to combating terrorism.

Obama’s answer is talk - you cannot reason with a rabid dog, Mr. Obama. You put the dog down.

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.

Former Marine and powerful House Democrat John Murtha is incapable of allowing the United States to benefit from anything this administration does, despite how he really feels. Party politics must always triumph.

On Thursday:

Murtha, one of the most powerful House Democrats when it comes to war funding, gave qualified but likely his most glowing remarks Thursday about the Iraq war.

“I think the surge is working, but that’s only one element,” said Murtha, who chairs the defense appropriations subcommittee. “And the surge is working for a couple of different reasons. And one reason is the increase in troops.”

However, on Friday:

“The military surge has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,” Murtha’s statement read. “Unfortunately, the sacrifice of our troops has not been met by the Iraqi government and they have failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.

“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable.”

Ok - the military surge is working, yet we cannot win militarily. There are a couple of reasons the surge is working, yet the Iraqi government has failed to capitalize on the benefits of the surge.

John Murtha cannot possibly believe that the only reason for the current calm in Fallujah is military, when people are reporting that this also takes a high degree of help from Iraqi leaders.

There has been a story floating just under the surface of the news for several days now that I have been trying to ignore. It is about ‘diplomats’ in the United States Department of State who do not want to serve in Iraq. The Secretary of State has announced that Foreign Service Officers may be forced to go to Iraq, if enough volunteers are not found.

[youtube 1p8rPeBGVzM nolink]

The ‘career FSO’ in the above video is the definition of twit-ism. Having worked in USDS in the early 1990’s, I can tell you this mealy-mouthed knucklehead is far from being alone at USDS. There are some very valuable, talented people in USDS at all levels, but by far the majority are just like this guy. Serving himself with a nice, stable job and an easy road to retirement - not serving the United States.

The USDS in many respects is no longer the diplomatic arm of the United States government. It has become a muddled, bureaucratic antagonist to the executive with its own agenda. I also wonder why he feels safer in DC, where only the criminals have guns, than he would in the Green Zone. This argument by ‘career FSO’ types is not about a lack of safety in Iraq - it is about a lack of comfort in Iraq.

FSO stands for Foreign Service Officer, as in “somewhere overseas in the service of your nation because you have demonstrated you can act in the government’s best interests”. And just as soldiers don’t get to choose, neither do you get to publicly ball your own panties into a wad and rant into a microphone. This attitude that you can work a government job and then tell the government to suck eggs when you don’t like your assignment is ludicrous.

The latest angle on this story is that there are enough ‘volunteers’ to keep ‘diplomats’ who don’t want to go to Iraq from being forced to go. I would have presented them with the ultimatum - go or get un-volunteer yourself as a Foreign Service Officer. If it was up to me, I would RIF every single one of these whiners or relieve him for cause the next time one of them used a USDS computer to google a grocery store.

To those of you who did volunteer to serve the United States in one of the world’s hot spots, thank you!