 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
On Saturday, Tal’Afar mayor and Coalition Force spokesmen, Najim Abdallah, Col. Stephen Twitty, commander of 4th Brigade Combat Team and Lt. Col. Malcom Frost, commander of 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment held a news conference to answer questions.Jeff Jacoby asks the tough questions in the Boston Globe:The conference was specifically designed to address the Iraqi populace and featured two Iraqi news stations, Al- Araqnia, and Al-Diyar.
When asked why terrorists attacked Tal’Afar, and whether Tal’Afar will become a “time bomb” of sectarian strife, Abdallah reaffirmed unity.
“We are the biggest city close to the Syrian border. Enemy eyes are open to this city because of its diverse population, all living and working together in peace. They will take any chance to target it. We’ve killed many terrorists; and the enemy will find any hole to use to their advantage,” Abdallah said.
Further solidifying the unity of the city’s inhabitants, Abdallah added, “Sunni and Shiite came together to hold one mass funeral for the victims of the terrorist violence.”
<...>
“It is both foolish and immature to let this one event represent the progress Tal’Afar has made. You have to look at the schools, and the medical clinics, and the cooperation between the citizens to see [the real Tal’Afar],” Frost said.
<...>
Abdallah reiterated his call for unity and denounced the terrorist attempt to divide the city.“Tal’Afar will never become a ‘time bomb’ and will always be an example of how Iraqis can be united together. The people will not be separated,” Abdallah said.
\Why would Al Qaeda choose the past several days, just as Democrats in Congress were voting to run up a white flag and commit the United States to defeat in Iraq, to launch a bloody wave of terrorist atrocities?Recent news:For weeks, there had been noticeably less bloodshed and chaos in Iraq's most dangerous areas. The number of civilians murdered in Baghdad, for example, had dropped from 1,222 in December to 954 in January to 494 in February. US military deaths had dropped 20 percent during the first month of General David Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy , while the number of suspected terrorists captured had soared tenfold.
Nevertheless, the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate chose to move ahead with legislation requiring the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Of course a US withdrawal is precisely what Al Qaeda wants -- Osama bin Laden has crowed that "the failure of the United States . . . in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars." Wouldn't it have made more sense, then, for the terrorists to continue lying low, doing nothing that might queer the American retreat?
What could Al Qaeda have hoped to gain by shattering this relative lull with last week's horrific attacks? The carnage included a suicide bombing in a Baghdad market that killed at least 60 people, mostly women and children, and a triple car-bomb massacre in Diyala province that left 28 civilians dead. But why now? With Washington's top Democrats embracing the surrender agenda -- Senate majority leader declared on Tuesday that "this war is not worth the spilling of another drop of American blood" -- why would the terrorists unleash a renewed wave of slaughter and mayhem?
For that matter, why would Iran have chosen this moment to seize 15 British sailors and marines? One of the hostages was forced to write a letter urging the British government "to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future." But Britain has been withdrawing its forces from Iraq, reducing troop levels from 40,000 in 2003 to just 7,100 as of February. Prime Minister Tony Blair recently announced that 1,600 more troops will be pulled out this spring. So what was the point of Iran's unprovoked ambush?
The answer in both cases is that this is how totalitarian aggressors react to faintheartedness.
"In Middle Eastern warfare," writes retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters in the New York Post, "a classic tactic has been to retreat in the face of strength, but to attack when your enemy withdraws or shows signs of weakness." British troop pullouts and congressional cut-and-run votes prompt not fewer outrages and less mayhem, but more. The smell of irresolution doesn't satiate the totalitarians' appetite; it makes it keener.
