Meanwhile, Back in Iraq

So - with the Commanding General in the U.S. this week, did the troops of MNF-I slack off?

Doesn't look like it:

Sunday, 29 April 2007 72 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED
Saturday, 28 April 2007 US, Iraqi raid in Mahmudiyah nets Iranian-marked rockets, mortars
Saturday, 28 April 2007 Marines destroy truck bomb near Karmah
Saturday, 28 April 2007 17 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED IN IRAQ
Saturday, 28 April 2007 Baqubah: Local’s tips lead to success
Saturday, 28 April 2007 Commandos, Baghdad Eagles detain suspected extremists, find caches and IEDs
Saturday, 28 April 2007 Marne Forward Newscast – Soldiers work with Iraqi Police
Saturday, 28 April 2007Iraqi Army-led mission nets large cache
Saturday, 28 April 2007 Operation Chalons emphasizes U.S., ISF coordination
Saturday, 28 April 2007 Weapons cache found
Saturday, 28 April 2007 FOUR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED
Friday, 27 April 2007 Operation Commando Dive leads to detentions, cache finds
Friday, 27 April 2007 COALITION FORCES DETAIN NINE
Friday, 27 April 2007 FOUR SUSPECTED SECRET CELL TERRORISTS DETAINED
Thursday, 26 April 2007 Four terrorists killed, two suspects wounded
Thursday, 26 April 2007 TERRORISTS KILLED, VBIED NETWORK DISRUPTED
Thursday, 26 April 2007 CCCI Convicts 41, Sentences 4 to death, 3 to life imprisonment
Thursday, 26 April 2007 THREE TERRORISTS KILLED DURING OPERATIONS IN SADR CITY
Wednesday, 25 April 2007 Six suspected terrorists detained
Wednesday, 25 April 2007 Al-Qaeda in Iraq security emir killed
Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED, CACHE FOUND
Tuesday, 24 April 2007 VBIED detonates near Diyala’s provincial council headquarters
Tuesday, 24 April 2007 Correction - Fardh Al-Qanoon Update Efforts Against Extremists Continue
Tuesday, 24 April 2007 Weapons cache found inside Baghdad mosque
Monday, 23 April 2007 19 TERRORISTS DETAINED IN COALITION RAIDS
Monday, 23 April 2007 Troops assist neighborhood with fire damage
Monday, 23 April 2007 Coalition Forces see progress in Diyala River Valley
Sunday, 22 April 2007 ONE TERRORIST KILLED, 19 SUSPECTS CAPTURED, BOMB-MAKING CACHE FOUND
Sunday, 22 April 200715 TERRORISTS KILLED, SEVEN SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED
Sunday, 22 April 2007 Clearing operation Nets Five Weapons Caches in Baghdad’s Mansour district

Meanwhile, back in America, hard working newspaper editors were diligently ensuring that virtually none of these stories would appear in their headlines.

Get ready for "failure day"

"News" from the New York Times:

The White House Scales Back Talk of Iraq Progress

WASHINGTON, April 27 — The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.

Now I looked, but I can't find any news there.

But then again, I was paying attention in the early days of the surge. (January, within days of the announcement.) Back then reporters wanted to know from (then-MNF-I commander) General Casey exactly when they could call the operation a failure. Short version:

"What's your thinking about how long these additional troops will need to stay here?"

"It will be late summer before we see some results to cause us to make decisions."

But the headlines the next day read: "General: Some Troops Heading To Iraq Could Be Home In Months"

In reality (if not in the "reality based community") in spite of the passage of time Casey's comments are consistent with General Petraeus' this week:

Q: ...And secondly, your recommendations in September, are you willing to countenance the idea that you may have to say to the president, this is not working, we should pull troops out, or are you more likely to say things are not going well, here are the adjustments and strategies we need to make?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, on the latter one, I mean, I have an obligation to some wonderful young men and women in uniform, and a lot of civilians, by the way, who are serving in Iraq and who deserve a forthright assessment from the folks at the top about the situation on the ground, and that's what I'm going to provide.

So there's no news in that "late summer bit". (And note there's been no promise by either man of victory by that date. That will change in the September news - just watch.)

2008?

Back in March, unnamed "military officials" leaked this story...

The day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened U.S. troop levels in Iraq be extended through February 2008, military officials said.
<...>
Military officials said Wednesday that Odierno had provided his assessment to his superior, General David Petraeus, who took over as the top commander in Iraq earlier this year.

... to the New York Times.

Who in today's "news" claim:

In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.

But I guess New York Times reporters don't read the New York Times.

What we'll get in September will be another candid assessment from General Petraeus (it will be ignored or distorted - as this week's was) of progress of an ongoing process - along with recommendations on how to go forward from there. To predict more would be folly. But I do predict "some" will claim anything less than a declaration of "total victory" (and that declaration won't happen) is defeat.

As noted, reporters want a "date certain" they can declare failure, and will gleefully do so once that assessment date arrives. By pretending they are "news" (or an "extension") each time such dates are noted will ensure maximum attention, and ignoring what is really said will enable the media to pretend they said something completely different when the time comes. Amazing what you can accomplish by flat out lying about what people say and when they say it.

But it's not surprising that the Ignoratti believe what they're told. (More here.)

Appeal for More Hype

Chap asks, "Funnily enough I don't see anything about information war in the good LTCOL's article. Where's the IW/PA/PSYOPS love?"

Heh. I suspect that like me, Chap sees it between every line of the subsequent coverage. But perhaps I'm simply transferring my own suspicions...

*****

Wow - here's a huge surprise. NPR did a story this week on military members "speaking out".

Members of the U.S. armed forces are prohibited from speaking out against the war in Iraq. The Uniform Code of Military Justice limits what soldiers may say about political issues.

But as opposition to the Iraq war mounts, some service members are finding ways to air their opinions. Some are speaking anonymously while others sign a petition.

"You know this isn't really what we signed up to do. This isn't really what I believe America is about," an Army intelligence officer says, speaking from his base in Iraq.

Comments like this would land him in a military prison if he were identified.

Whoever wrote that line has never read the "letters to the editor" section of the Army Times. That last claim is a load of horseshit, and reveals more about the purpose of NPR's story than its (uninformed) author probably intended. But it's an effective appeal to the ignoratti - and it establishes the mindset they want listeners to bring to the remainder of the piece.

Later the guy confesses to war crimes - indiscriminately shooting civilians. This actually would land him in military prison, but the author of this one would prefer you to believe it's his courageous speech that would end his freedom.

Anyhow,

Several months later, he was back in the United States and signed a petition calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. It's known as the Appeal for Redress, and all of the signatories are active-duty servicemen and servicewomen.
<...>
The Appeal for Redress enables service members to appeal to their congressional representatives to end U.S. military occupation in Iraq.

Listen to the NPR audio and you can even hear Jonathan Hutto "rail against the imperialist war against the working class". Yup - it's yet another free advertisement for the Astroturf campaign. You have to admit that Fenton Communications really knows their business - the PR campaign for this "grass roots" movement has been highly effective in getting attention for the front group (and hiding those behind it).

And given the time and resources of those various groups behind it (and despite Hutto's exaggerations) a miserable failure at collecting signatures. (If signatures are their purpose, that is, the failure doesn't seem to have dampened the media enthusiasm thus far.) An actual un-hyped, grass roots counter-effort, Appeal for Courage, has drawn more in just two months without any organized publicity campaign. One wonders if that's sparked a sense of urgency among the faithful...

But lo and behold - at the same NPR link above:

Lt. Col. Paul Yingling is an active duty commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Friday, he published an article in Armed Forces Journal entitled "General Failure." It charges Army generals with incompetent leadership of the Iraq war.

Gannett is certainly doing a fine job of pimping this glorified letter to the editor, too.

At least the NPR piece does clarify a few of Yingling's more vague original points. Responding to comments that the military is adapting to a fluid battlefield, Lt Col Yingling demonstrates a vice-like grasp of the obvious:

The Armed forces are trying to get better at counterinsurgency. But the measure of effectiveness - we will know we're succeeding when Iraqi civilians become safer. Until that happens we can't describe our efforts as successful.

In short, it's only after a strategy has been executed and concluded that we can determine its worth.

When asked if there are any Generals who meet his personal approval as leaders for the future he named Shinseki.

Say what you will of Lt Col Yingling, he has the most amazingly crystal clear hindsight I've ever seen.

*****

I see three distinct points of discussion on Lt Col Yingling's article and the suspiciously large and simultaneous amount of subsequent coverage it's gotten beyond the Gannet publication in which it first appeared.

1. The points he makes in the body of the piece. Though much more valid prior to the change in strategy in Iraq they remain well worthy of discussion. Lex addressed them here. (Please read.)

2. Yingling's conclusion - congress must take more control over America's Generals. I find this disturbing, as congress is and has been very much involved in the process (recall the unanimous approval of General Petraeus as Commander, MNF-I for a recent example). Grim touched on that aspect here but I think that's just a start of a fine discussion. (Would more congressional control - exercised by Hillary Clinton and Trent Lott et al - over the past five years really have made a difference? Think about that...)

3. The subsequent coverage. I find the comments of my fellow MilBloggers (and hopefully my own input) quite worthwhile and exactly the sort of thoughtful, informed discussion one would hope would result from the original point.

But the media hype - full of claims that prison awaits those who speak out, and conflation of Yingling's piece with the Appeal for Redress astroturf campaign (not just NPR, the AP did it here) - is unhelpful, and seems a bit too well timed with the "anti-war" crowd in congress' desperate need for some immediate means to discredit one specific American General.

I don't believe that last aim is shared by Lt Col Yingling. And I believe he might be somewhat disturbed to find himself sharing the radio airwaves and newspaper text with the Appeal for Redress crowd. Beyond superficial similarities I think the only commonality between the two is an obviously well-oiled publicity campaign going on behind the scenes - in one case hiding the real story and in another hammering the square peg of truth into the pre-shaped round hole of current (and immediate) political expedience.

*****

One last trip back to NPR's advertisement for Appeal for Redress:

The campaign is not without critics, including military bloggers...

That's all you get by way of balance. But I have to suspect that if the author is actually aware of any milblogger critique of the group, they are fully aware of the nature of that complaint, and chose not to include it in the report. Since it would completely derail the point I suspect the Fenton folks would be a bit upset if they did.

What He Said

General Petraeus briefed House and Senate members this week. Perhaps surprisingly, the San Francisco Chronicle offers a fairly straightforward report

Top general in Iraq asks Congress for more time

Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, came to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to convince lawmakers that additional U.S. forces dispatched to Baghdad have helped reduce sectarian bloodshed, and that Congress must allow more time to bring security to Iraq.
<...>
Petraeus, who oversees Washington's latest effort to provide security in Baghdad, said Wednesday that the so-called Baghdad security plan has helped reduce sectarian killings by about one-third since the beginning of the year.

"That is an important development, because sectarian murders can be a cancer in a neighborhood," he told reporters hours before the legislators were scheduled to vote on a war funding package that includes a timetable for withdrawing most U.S. troops from Iraq.

Reducing sectarian killings in Baghdad "is an area where there has been progress," he said.

Petraeus called progress in the volatile western Anbar province "breathtaking" and said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is "doing his best" at leading the country.

Some Republicans had hoped to make political hay over the fact that Democrats originally planned to boycott the briefings before voting on their (choose one or more: "funding" "surrender" "massive pork") Bill

The vote came after a classified briefing by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq, turned into a public spectacle surrounded by political charges and followed by two press conferences.
<...>
Last week, Democrats initially declined an invitation to the briefing due to scheduling conflicts, but they reconsidered after Republicans chided them for skipping a briefing with a key commander while setting policies on the conflict.

Still, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not attend. It was not clear where she was Wednesday afternoon. Aides did not return calls Wednesday.
<...>
“I think the speaker’s got better things to do, frankly,” agreed Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.). “They didn’t say anything they haven’t said in public.”

Back then I pointed out that Republicans had nothing to gain from that.

Likewise, the Democrats have little to fear from attending hearings with General Petraeus. While they might not like what they hear, that will matter very little - because American voters aren't going to hear it anyway.

Because the briefing was classified, all attendees are forbidden from sharing the specific details of its content. While they can describe what was said, that leaves us with only their characterization of the content.

The St Petersburg Times points out the inevitable results here:

WASHINGTON - Hours before the House of Representatives narrowly passed a $124-billion bill to fund the war in Iraq, the commander of the multinational forces there delivered a classified briefing to Congress.
<...>
But at dueling Democratic and Republican news conferences after Petraeus' closed-door meeting with the House, it seemed as if the members had attended different briefings.

But while we can't know some specific details (future plans and operations) that were shared in that briefing, we can review the public briefing General Petraeus gave a few hours later:

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well good morning. It's good to be with you all, and nice to see some familiar faces here this morning. My purpose this morning is to provide a short update on the situation in Iraq, including a brief description of the operational environment, the challenges Iraq faces, and the status of our operations, and then to take your questions. This is similar to my briefings to the House and Senate yesterday afternoon, but without the classified information that I provided to them, obviously.

Full written transcript here.

And we can compare the statements of all parties (or Parties) involved. Statements attributed to "Republicans" and "Democrats" below are from the St Petersburg Times coverage linked above. Quotes from General Petraeus are from the briefing above.

*****

Let's dispense with this one right off. On how the debate in Congress might affect conditions in Iraq:

Democrats: It's helpful. Hoyer said he asked Petraeus about recent comments by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the congressional debate warns the Iraqi government that American patience and resources aren't unlimited. "It seemed to me that Gen. Petraeus certainly did not disagree," Hoyer said.

Republicans: It's harmful. "One thing that he reminded us was, this is a test of wills and he admonished us, reminded us that what we say to the world, to our adversaries and our allies, is listened to by the other side," Hunter said.

GEN. PETRAEUS: I have, as you know, in fact tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals and so forth...

He did add this comment: "Moreover, it is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation." - but he was talking about the Iraqi government.

Now on to the issues.

*****

On the biggest threat to U.S. forces and stability in Iraq:

Republicans: Al-Qaida, the shadowy terrorist group responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and whose involvement with Iraq - later disproved - was cited by President Bush as a key reason to invade four years ago. Iran also is causing trouble.

"Al-Qaida, he made clear, continues to make this the central front in their war with us," Boehner said. "And I would remind everyone that we didn't start this war with al-Qaida, they started it. ... And they are the major foe that we face in Iraq today."

Democrats: Homegrown insurgents and the rampant violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

"Gen. Petraeus made it very clear that the sectarian violence was the most disruptive element," Hoyer said.

GEN. PETRAEUS: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign."

Q: You say that Iraq is now the central focus of al Qaeda's worldwide effort. Are you saying that al Qaeda in Iraq is now the sort of principal enemy of the U.S. forces stationed there?

A: I think it is probably public enemy number one.

*****

On how the bill's timetable for withdrawal and benchmarks for the Iraqi government may affect conditions in Iraq:

Democrats: Positively. "Our belief that we must hold the Iraqis accountable for achieving real progress and establish a timetable for a responsible deployment of American forces was also reinforced" by the briefing, Hoyer said.

Republicans: Negatively. "I believe generally what was said by the general and others is that that would not be helpful to his cause, and, quite frankly, went on to say that it would be - it would hurt the very cause that we seek to win there," Boehner said.

GEN. PETRAEUS:I have, as you know, in fact tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals and so forth...

My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced and not to be doing what it is that they are doing right now.

*****

On how the war is going, and whether the recent surge of U.S. troops to Baghdad is working:

Democrats: Badly. And it is clear peace will not be achieved militarily.

"This briefing reinforced our view that the solution in Iraq is a political solution," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Our troops are mired in a civil war with no clear enemy and no clear strategy for success."

Republicans: Tough, but not so bad. "Considering where we are, I think the general feels good about the progress thus far in the reinforcements that are there, in the performance of the Iraqi troops," said Minority Leader John Boehner, D-Ohio.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, added that the Iraqi military is making progress, and Iraqis soon may replace some Americans.

(And sorry - there's no way to reduce this further because there's a lot of equally important evidence presented) GEN. PETRAEUS: The situation is, in short, exceedingly challenging, though as I will briefly explain, there has been progress in several areas in recent months despite the sensational attacks by al Qaeda, which have, of course, been significant blows to our effort and which cause psychological damage that is typically even greater than their physical damage.
<...>
We have achieved some notable successes in the past two months, killing the security emir of eastern Anbar province, detaining a number of key network leaders, discovering how various elements of al Qaeda Iraq operate, taking apart a car bomb network that had killed 650 citizens of Baghdad, and destroying several significant car bomb factories. Nonetheless, al Qaeda Iraq remains a formidable foe with considerable resilience and a capability to produce horrific attacks, but a group whose ideology and methods have increasingly alienated many in Iraq.

This group's activities must be significantly disrupted, at the least, for the new Iraq to succeed, and it has been heartening to see Sunni Arabs in Anbar province and several other areas turning against al Qaeda and joining the Iraqi security forces to fight against it. That has been a very significant development.

The extremist militias in Iraq also are a substantial problem and must be significantly disrupted. There can be no sustainable outcome if militia death squads are allowed to lie low during the surge only to resurface later and resume killing and intimidation.

There have been some significant successes in this arena as well, including the detentions -- detention of the heads of the Sadr secret cell network, the Iraqi leader of an explosively formed projectile network from Iran, the former deputy minister of Health and his facility protection security force brigadier, who had effectively hijacked the Ministry of Health, and a national police officer accused of torture, with several of these detained by Iraqi forces.

Sunni insurgents and the so-called Sunni resistance are still forces that must be reckoned with, as well. However, while we continue to battle a number of such groups, we are seeing some others joining Sunni Arab tribes in turning against al Qaeda Iraq and helping transform Anbar province and other areas from being assessed as lost as little as six months ago to being relatively heartening. We will continue to engage with Sunni tribal sheikhs and former insurgent leaders to support the newfound opposition of some to al Qaeda, ensuring that their fighters join legitimate Iraqi security force elements to become part of the fight against extremists, just as we reach out to moderate members of all sects and ethnic groups to try to drive a wedge between the irreconcilables and the reconcilables, and help the latter become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
<...>
There are also a number of challenges in the area of governance that the embassy and Multinational Force Iraq are helping the Iraqis to address. It is in fact important to recall that the government of Prime Minister Maliki is Iraq's fourth government in as many years. Moreover, it is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation.

That is one reason that progress on key laws has been slow, though there has been some progress. The budget law, the base hydrocarbon law approved by the Council of Ministers, the emergency powers law and so forth have all been noteworthy. And it is in fact just noteworthy to acknowledge, as Ambassador Negroponte did yesterday, just what Iraq has achieved since he served there as the ambassador in 2004, with respect to its elections, its constitution, its government and so forth. I believe Prime Minister Maliki and many other Iraqi leaders are committed to achieving more in this area in the months ahead.

Though its institutions are slowly developing, Iraq still suffers from a lack of the governmental capacity needed to put Iraq's oil revenues to work sufficiently for all its people. In view of this, we are working hard, together with the U.S. embassy again, to help strengthen institutions, doubling the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams, establishing a law and order task force, developing an energy fusion cell, and increasing emphasis on ministerial mentorship.

The focus of Multinational Force Iraq is, of course, on working with our Iraqi counterparts to help improve security for the people of Iraq in order to give Iraqi leaders the time and space they need to come to grips with the tough political issues that must be resolved. Resolution of these issues is the key to the achievement of reconciliation among the various ethnic and sectarian groups, political parties and leaders in order to achieve a lasting solution to Iraq's problems.

We are still in the relatively early stages of our new effort, about two months into it, with three of five Army surge brigades and two additional Marine battalions on the ground, and the remainder of the additional combat forces scheduled to be operating in their areas by mid-June.
<...>
Baghdad is the main effort, and we continue to establish joint security stations and combat outposts in the city and in the belts around it. The presence of coalition and Iraqi forces and increased operational tempo, especially in areas where until recently we had no sustained presence, have begun to produce results. Most significantly, Iraqi and coalition forces have helped to bring about a substantial reduction in the rate of sectarian murders each month from January until now in Baghdad, a reduction of about two-thirds. There have also been increases in weapons caches seized and the number of actionable tips received.

In the Ramadi area, for example, U.S. and Iraqi forces have found nearly as many caches in the first four months of this year as they found in all of last year.

Beyond this, we are seeing a revival of markets, renewed commerce, the return of some displaced families and the slow resumption of services, though I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and I again note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.
<...>
Our achievements have not come without sacrifice. Our increase in operational tempo, location of our forces in the populations they are securing and conduct of operations in areas where we previously had no presence, as well as the enemy's greater use of certain types of explosive devices, have led to an increase in our losses. Our Iraqi partners have sacrificed heavily as well, with losses generally two to three times ours or even more.

Indeed, while some Iraqi forces remain a work in progress, there should be no question that Iraq's soldiers and police are fighting and dying for their country, and a number of them have impressively shouldered their part of the burden of the fight against al Qaeda and the other enemies of the new Iraq. To help them progress, we have steadily been increasing the number of transition teams, the train and equip effort, and steadily strengthening the partnership programs between our forces and Iraqi elements.
<...>
As I mentioned, we generally in many areas -- not all, but in many areas -- have a sense of sort of incremental progress. Again, that is not transmitted at all. Of course it will never break through the noise and the understandable coverage given to it in the press of a sensational attack that kills many Iraqis.
<...>
Now, with respect to returnees, we're seeing small numbers, and that's, I think, what you heard me say in the statement. Again, I don't know that you would yet call it a trend. We have seen, again, some neighborhoods that were really depopulated, in which there have been the early signs of returns.

We have seen -- I mean, you look at a place, for example, like Dura, the Dura market down in East Rashid in Baghdad, a real difficult area, perhaps one of the toughest in all of Baghdad. I went on a couple of patrols the day after I took command back in February, and candidly, I was sort of shocked at what I saw in terms of what sectarian violence had done to Baghdad. And the Dura area in particular struck me because there was not a single shop open at all; and there now are -- I think it's over 200 and literally climbing every day.

The reason is because Iraqi and coalition soldiers hardened that market, located Iraqi and U.S. combat outposts right in the center of the market, and then on its periphery. And in fact, I walked through that area with a CNN reporter, in fact, a few weeks ago, and it has continued to expand over time down there despite attacks.

So there's a degree of resilience there as well.

But that's what we are seeing. And again, too soon, I think, to call that a trend, too soon to say that what we've done in just the first couple of months has -- with our Iraqi partners, again, enabled them to stitch together the fabric of society that was so torn.
<...>
Anbar province made the progress that it did because of the courageous action of some sheikhs who said, enough, to the killing by al Qaeda of their brothers, sons, sheikhs and so forth. It started with Sheikh Sattar near Ramadi, working with Colonel Sean MacFarland. He came to Colonel MacFarland and said, I'd like to join the coalition in fighting against al Qaeda, and they made a pretty courageous choice. He volunteered some of his young men to be part of the Iraqi police structure, and it literally just started to ripple on out from there, with each sort of contiguous tribe joining in the same fashion. And what you have now is a very, very significant movement.

By the way, that tribal movement is now turning into a political movement. And Sheikh Sattar had a meeting with a number of the tribal leaders just, I think it was, last week, where they came together to discuss when provincial elections are held, as the process moves forward in Anbar province, should this effort that has been focused largely on helping the security forces be moved forward also as somewhat of a political movement? And in fact, Prime Minister Maliki went out there, as I think you know, to Ramadi and met with not just the governor or the provincial council but also with the sheikhs and with the leaders of the Iraqi security forces.

Again, none of this would have been possible without these sheikhs, particularly the early ones, taking a very courageous stand at a time that was actually very, very dangerous, and has now enabled the Iraqi and coalition forces in partnership to largely clear Ramadi, which only two months or two-and-a-half months ago was largely al Qaeda central. And just to get to the governance center, you literally had to fight your way downtown.
<...>
By the way, I found the same enthusiasm in Western Nineveh province, an area that I knew from the first year there with the 101st Airborne Division, met with the sheikhs of the Shammar tribe up there.

And these are individuals who sadly in the period of the most intimidation by al Qaeda of Sunni Arabs in the fall of 2004 and well into 2005, the period when they boycotted the election and so forth, and really now know that they lost out -- we could not get volunteers from those particular tribes. Now they want to help form new battalions and so forth.

Now, this is not just because they want to fight against al Qaeda. It is also because of a very good and realistic appraisal of this situation, and that is that the Sunni Arabs lost out by not participating in the past. They lost influence in government. They lost influence, if you will, or participation, jobs in the Iraqi security forces, and I think they now recognize that they need to participate, they want to participate. And that is a very, very important development, again. And once again, this never could have -- the progress in Anbar would not have happened without that.
<...>
Q (Off mike) -- progress are less than obvious to a person in the United States, much less Iraq or Europe. Is it possible that these things could improve while spectacular bombing attacks still occur in parallel?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I think first of all -- look, I think you have to be realistic and acknowledge there is going to be a continuation of some level of sensational attacks. In an environment where to prevent those, you know, the Iraqi and coalition forces have to protect everything and they only have to attack one thing, some of that is going to happen. I used the analogy the other day of Northern Ireland, which some of you are very familiar with and in which for some decades there was a level of violence that actually the Northern Ireland citizens learned to live with, really.

And actually, to be fair to the Iraqis, I mean they're an exceedingly resilient people. I actually the other night was talking to one of your colleagues from The Washington Post and talked about this idea that there is -- you know, we feel this incremental progress; it's very difficult to demonstrate. In fact, the progress is interesting, because it's a negative. It means nothing happened, in most cases. In other words, there were not sectarian murders. Whether that is newsworthy before it goes on for several weeks is obviously arguable.

But anyway, so what I asked was, "Hey, come on, it's about dusk, let's go -- we'll fly around the city a little bit." And we flew around. And so -- I mean, it was unbelievable.

This is a day in which I think there was a car bomb in Iraq, some of Iraq’s seven million citizens were affected by that, but you could not have told that from what we saw over the city. There were three big amusement parks operational. I'm talking about, you know, roller coaster kinds of -- these are not just a couple little merry-go-rounds in small neighborhood parks. Restaurants in some parts of the city were booming. Lots of markets were open. The people were on the street. There were -- there had to be a thousand soccer games ongoing. They're watering the grass in various professional soccer fields -- the soccer leagues.

You know, all of this is actually so foreign, I think, in the mind of most people who see the news and of course do see that day's explosion or something like that. And actually there is a city of seven million in which life goes on, and again, citizens are determined to carry on with their life.

*****

Those responses seem to favor the Republican's characterization of General Petraeus' remarks. So to be fair - the last word goes to Harry Reid:

General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.

*****

UPDATE: The (predictable) search for talking points to use against him is certainly on.

Mike Yon on the Surge

In his press conference this morning, General Petraeus spotlighted one indicator of success with the new "surge" plan-- the increased presence of forces in new Combat Outposts throughout Baghdad, and the "increased operational tempo" are beginning to produce significant results, specifically, a 2/3rds reduction in sectarian murders in the city.

Desires of the Human Hearts is a two part photo essay that gives a detailed look at how Coalition soldiers are accomplishing these results.

In the face of daunting odds and clear obstacles, the soldiers from the I-4 Cavalry out of Ft Riley Kansas (some of whom are depicted in the attached photos) begin the process of transforming an abandoned but barely disturbed Christian College facility into COP Amanche, their home base for the foreseeable future. In a three day span, where they barely rest, the soldiers stay focused on their mission and do not miss any opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to returning some sense of security and normalcy to the neighborhood.

General Petraeus on Iraq

If you missed the live stream of General Petraeus' briefing on Iraq, there will be an encore at 1500 (3PM) eastern time.

20% military, 80% political

If that version of the 80/20 rule (there are others: 20% of the people do 80% of the work, 20% of the people cause 80% of the problems) it looks like the odds for getting things done favor the politicians.

It's certainly become one of Senator Harry Reid's favorite sound bites:

BASH: The phrase "the war is lost" really touched a nerve.

Do you stand by that -- that -- that comment?

REID: General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He's the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus.
<...>
General -- General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. He said that.

That's different than saying it's lost (unless Senator Reid knows full well that the "80% political" component is going to devote it's efforts to destroying the "20% military").

But while I was already familiar with the Generals comment that you can't kill all the bad guys - some must be "reconciled"...:

GEN. PETRAEUS: With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.

...I wasn't certain on the origin of the specific 80-20 remark. Senator Reid seems to have used it more times in one interview than the General has in the past several months.

In fact, here's an obscure Fall, 2006 interview (Source here - hat tip: A Jacksonian) that might be the first. In discussing the (then) forthcoming Field Manual on Counterinsurgency, (Petraeus oversaw it's creation) the Interviewer prompts a discussion:

I: I wanted to get to the idea that counterinsurgency is 20-percent military, 80-percent political and sort of how that plays out.

And the General responded:

R: Well that’s a--a common feature of counter-insurgency literature and--and Doctrine and has--has been for years. But it--well it’s--it’s from David Galula’s classic book, which in fact is read by all of the students at the Command and General Staff College, where I might add we had gone from having about five-percent of the curriculum of the average Command and General Staff College student covering counter-insurgency to over 40-percent and even higher depending on the electives. But Galula’s book--a number of others all certainly and you can certainly debate whether the percentage is 20/80 or 30/70 or who knows what but--but clearly there has to be a primacy of the political aspects. At the end of the day that’s what this is about--it is about helping another nation in this case forge a sense of political community, of unity, of moving forward together and then improving in the economic realm, improving in the realm of basic services, improving in terms of--of security, of justice, and all of the other aspects that any society aspires to enjoy.

So now we have the General on record - and an earlier source. Since then the manual has been published and publicly released. Therein (page 1-22) we discover an even earlier source:

1-123. General Chang Ting-chen of Mao Zedong’s central committee once stated that revolutionary war was 80 percent political action and only 20 percent military. Such an assertion is arguable and certainly depends on the insurgency’s stage of development; it does, however, capture the fact that political factors have primacy in COIN. At the beginning of a COIN operation, military actions may appear predominant as security forces conduct operations to secure the populace and kill or capture insurgents; however, political objectives must guide the military’s approach. Commanders must, for example, consider how operations contribute to strengthening the HN government’s legitimacy and achieving U.S. political goals. This means that political and diplomatic leaders must actively participate throughout the conduct (planning, preparation, execution, and assessment) of COIN operations. The political and military aspects of insurgencies are so bound together as to be inseparable. Most insurgent approaches recognize that fact. Military actions executed without properly assessing their political effects at best result in reduced effectiveness and at worst are counterproductive. Resolving most insurgencies requires a political solution; it is thus imperative that counterinsurgent actions do not hinder achieving that political solution.

And in the notes:

para 1-123. …revolutionary war was 80 percent political action and only 20 percent military: cited in David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (1964; reprint New York: Praeger, 2005), 89 (hereafter cited as Galula); …he was involved with establishing special schools…: Walter Sullivan, “China’s Communists Train Political Corps to Aid Army,” The New York Times, 4 Jul 1949.

Anyhow, while that source in Communist Chinese revolutionary doctrine renders the concept no less valid (and there's nothing wrong with adopting conceptual elements of foundations of strategy that may be applicable regardless of source), it might explain both General Petraeus' reluctance to emphasize that specific point in public (I can find no other citations - perhaps others can), and Senator Reid's seizure of the concept and endless repetition thereof. And while Reid isn't citing the original author either, clearly he - or someone on his staff - is an expert to at least that level of detail on either Counterinsurgency or Revolution, or both.

But on which are they focused? Given that Reid appears to be using his part of the 80% against the General's 20, I'm afraid I know the answer.

*****

Related: If you're interested in what President Bush, General Petraeus, and Senator Reid actually have to say on military/political ops, start here.

On Point

This clip from CNN International (yes, it has been on CNN in the U.S., too) could hardly be called a "morale booster"

"We've talked at length, my soldiers and myself, and a term that comes up often is, 'this is our generation's Vietnam.' I don't think this can be won."

That's a tough assessment to hear - but it's also not an isolated opinion, and it should be heard.

To respond I would need to know what "Vietnam" means to SSG Pierre. I'm not taking the easy way out here - I'm being fair and not assigning my meaning to him. Military members have almost as many opinions on Vietnam as the general public. A couple simplified points most would agree on are "a lot of people killed" and "a war lost in Washington".

Does SSG Pierre agree? I don't know. If I were the interviewer I would have asked. But if he did, that question and it's answer didn't make the final cut for this video clip.

Leaving a sound bite that "anti-war" blogs can celebrate - as long as they ignore SSG Pierre's dire warning:

CNN: He fears the United States will leave this country worse than it found it, leaving a slaughter behind it.

St Pierre: We are the buffer right now. When you pull us out the people that support us are going to feel the wrath, and the people that were against us - and they're the majority - they're gonna, I believe ultimately win. That's unfortunate.

CNN: It is one soldier's view, from the evidence of his eyes.

Over at Daily Kos that's distilled into a more palatable form:

St. Pierre recognizes that U.S. forces are the "buffer" in this civil war, and that a withdrawal of American troops will lead that majority who is against us to win.

As with Democrats in congress, the "slaughter" part goes away. Put that slaughter back in and it's hard to believe SSG Pierre is in favor of leaving. (Maybe even the Kos readers - which may be why it didn't make "the cut".)

But back to Daily Kos:

But, as Sargent points out, St. Pierre is echoing what Harry Reid said in recent weeks.

True - if you change what one of them said. (After all, both Harry Reid and General Petraeus are saying the same things too, right?) As I said, this video clip is hardly a pep talk, but one could as easily infer it as a warning to politicians in Washington (especially those who announce that "this war is lost") that they're about to have another Vietnam-like slaughter on their hands.

*****

Let's close with a thought from a commenter at Kos ("the reality based community"):

"I'm just desperately hopeful that it turns out to be the beginning of the end of MSM passivity on Iraq."

Reminder

Registration for the 2007 MilBlog Conference will close on Friday, April 27. On-site registrations will be not be allowed. Click here to register.

Meet Kelly Bruno

Off the war topic: Meet Kelly Bruno.

The Ranger Up guys (and girls) rock.

Reid to home state soldiers: Thanks, Losers

Soldier's from Harry Reid's homestate, preparing to deploy to Iraq: "We're not losing this war."

Response from Reid's office: an email expressing the Senator's gratitude for their service, understanding of their sacrifice and the effect on their families, and a statement that the effort has failed and "will not lead to success in Iraq."

Rest here.

In other "Iraq War News"

Democrats Back Date For Start Of Iraq Pullout

WASHINGTON, April 23 — Congressional Democrats agreed Monday to ignore President Bush’s veto threat and send him a $124 billion war spending bill that orders the administration to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1.
<...>
Mr. Bush made it clear again on Monday that he would use the second veto of his tenure to kill the legislation, which would set a goal of having most American combat forces out of Iraq within six months of Oct. 1.

“An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, ‘Just wait them out,’ ” he said. “It would say to the Iraqis, ‘Don’t do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives,’ and it would be discouraging for our troops.”

Negotiators Agree on War-Funding Package
House-Senate Bill, Which Sets Timetable for Troop Withdrawal, Likely to Face Veto

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement yesterday on war-funding legislation that would begin bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as early as July, setting a goal of ending U.S. combat operations by no later than March.
<...>
After combat forces are withdrawn, some troops could remain to protect U.S. facilities and diplomats, pursue terrorist organizations and train and equip Iraqi security forces.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) called it "a message of surrender. We all know this bill is going nowhere," he said.
<...>
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) accused Bush of living in a "state of denial" and of becoming "isolated" and "obstinate" as public support for the war dwindled.

"Despite the president's happy talk, no progress has been made" in Iraq, Reid said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "The time for patience is long past."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino retorted that it is Reid who is in denial.

"He's in denial about the enemy that we face," she said. "He is in denial about the conflict that we are in . . . [about] a surrender date he thinks is a good idea. It is not a good idea. It is defeat. It is a death sentence for the millions of Iraqis who voted for . . . a free and democratic society."

Let's take a closer look at that - because anyone who believes the Democrats have a workable plan for Iraq should probably read the fine print on their surrender bill:

Negotiators Agree on War-Funding Package

House-Senate Bill, Which Sets Timetable for Troop Withdrawal, Likely to Face Veto

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement yesterday on war-funding legislation that would begin bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as early as July, setting a goal of ending U.S. combat operations by no later than March.
<...>
After combat forces are withdrawn, some troops could remain to protect U.S. facilities and diplomats, pursue terrorist organizations and train and equip Iraqi security forces.

Which is what the troops there today are doing.

No details as to how few troops would be left to perform this mission - or how the lucky bastards would be chosen.

Who knows - maybe those Nevada troops will end up sorry they ever mouthed off to Harry Reid...

Regarding Message

At MilBlogs, Chap asks "Now how to take this analysis to another step?"

I've come up with a couple (here and here) thoughts on what folks might do.

So far.

Strange Days

Most Democratic lawmakers will admit the Iraq and Afghanistan funding Bill will eventually be re-written and passed:

"The troops will get the money they need when all is said and done," predicted Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a conference call with reporters on Friday. "There's a lot of Republicans who are very concerned about where we are [regarding progress in Iraq], and I think we can pick up some support on a veto override. which, even if we don't override, would show continuing momentum."

The current version, as I believe I might have mentioned before, is a political ploy. But That doesn't sit well with many of the staunchest "anti-war" voters - who want the troops home yesterday:

But for antiwar activists, it's not enough. Many Democratic lawmakers say they are flooded with calls from constituents urging them to live up to their campaign promises on the war.

Rep. James Moran (D) of Virginia met over breakfast recently with 30 constituents at the Table Talk Restaurant in Alexandria, Va. They wanted to know why he had voted to support funds for another year of war, after campaigning to end it.

"It's a shame I had to disappoint the people who voted for me, because they are the ones who count in the end. But it was the most definitive statement against this war that the Congress has yet had.... It went as far as we could possibly go and still get 218 votes [for passage]," he says.

The post-veto vote on war funds will be even harder, he predicts. "It will come back and pass as a clean supplemental, but not with my vote."

In fairness, I can't let a mention of Congressman Moran pass without once again sharing this meeting with one of his constituents:

But Moran isn't the only one feeling the heat. Back to our first story:

In Peterborough, N.H., antiwar activists staking out the front steps of town hall say they are disappointed, but that they understand the votes by their two freshmen lawmakers. "There's a game going on now; I can't say I understand the compromises," says Jim Giddings, a peace activist from Greenville, N.H. "I don't hold it against him," he said of Mr. Hodes, who represents this district. "He is trying his best, and his intentions are good."

Surely he understands their anger. That's what Mr Hodes does best.

At least, when he's getting heat from another direction, too

Q: Do you not believe we have an obligation to these people [Iraqis]?
A:Um, well, there's clearly nothing I'm going to be able to say to address how angry you feel...
Q: I'm very angry, I have a nephew that has served two tours of duty, is scheduled to go back a third time. He will be in Iraq when you cut your funds, and yes, that makes me very angry.
A: You may misunderstand my motivation, and what the impact of this will be if this is passed. There's nothing I'm going to be able to say given how angry you are...
Q: I feel very strongly that you're endangering our soldiers... If this Congress was sitting during World War II, we would be having this discussion in German right now.
<...>
"My son will never come home," an angry Natalie Healy said of her son, Dan, who was killed in Afghanistan in June 2005. "He would be horrified and ashamed of this country for what it has done to the troops. You can take that back to Congress and tell every single one of those men and women."

Hodes last month joined a majority in the House backing an Iraq spending bill that set a timeline for a troop withdrawal and also included non-war related spending items that some said were needed to get the bill passed.

When Gerry Duncan of Nashua asked Hodes whether the bill would have passed if the non-war items weren't included, Hodes hesitated and said, "I don't know."

"I'm done," declared an angered Duncan, whose husband, Col. Richard Duncan, chief of staff of the New Hampshire Army National Guard, was injured in Afghanistan. She then walked out.

Sue Peterson of Weare, whose son Alex is a member of the 3643rd Security Force in the Army National Guard now in Iraq, said mixing money for the war with farm and other products was a disservice to the troops.

"I am so outraged and I'm trying to be calm listening to everybody," she said. But lumping everything into one bill was to "compare Alex and all the other soldiers to milk, peanuts, fish and spinach."

*****

"Sorry" he might have told them, "but you ain't my base." In fairness, I'm sure it's tough to keep the appearance of being a member of the "support the troops" crowd when the troops and their family members are speaking for themselves (it could even potentially threaten message control) but guys like Moran and Hodes have to lie in the beds they've made.

Al Qaeda (ironically, in English, "the Base") shares the anger of the Democrats "base", too:

Al-Qaeda's deputy leader has described the US plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq as a gamble that is bound to fail.

In an audio tape posted on the internet on Tuesday, Ayman al-Zawahiri also criticised the Democratic Party for not changing US policies.

He said: "The people chose you [Democrats] due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss, and it appears that you will take part with him in the defeat."

Or not. The al Qaeda boys have certainly done their part - timing their bloodiest and most spectacular attacks in Iraq to coincide with key dates in the progress of the Democrats Bill. (Yes - the Bill they acknowledge won't pass, that they admit is a delaying tactic to wear down opposition to the war is causing people to die in Iraq.)

*****

Many Americans are probably disappointed that the Democrats commitment to troop withdrawal is less than that of Moqtada al Sadr:

BAGHDAD — Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his ministers to quit Iraq’s government on Monday in protest at Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s refusal to set a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

But in reality - at least according to the New York Times - if he were a Democrat, he'd be a "moderate":

...last week, he withdrew his six cabinet ministers from the government, complaining that it was not doing enough to rid the country of the Americans.

But press his aides for concrete details of a timetable to present to the Americans, and the picture becomes murkier. They say they want the Americans out. But not just yet.

“In order to drive out the occupation, we need to build up the security forces; then we can have a timetable,” said Abdul Mehdi Mutairi, one of Mr. Sadr’s top political officials, as he smoked at his desk inside the main Sadr office in Baghdad, his television tuned to an Iranian-financed satellite network. He was referring to the Iraqi government’s largely Shiite army and police, which by all accounts could not yet control Iraqi violence on their own.
<...>
While Mr. Sadr’s aides criticized Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki last week for refusing to set a timetable for American withdrawal, Mr. Sadr himself has not come forward with deadlines. (The Democrats in Congress have taken a stronger stand.)

One leading Sadr legislator, Bahaa al-Aaraji, said the Americans should stay no longer than two more years. But like Mr. Mutairi, he insisted that the Iraqi security forces had to be well-trained before the Americans left.

Which sounds down right Republican. (But on some days, Joe Lieberman does, too.)

Strange days, indeed.

Related post here.

Addendum: Before I make the following broad descriptions, let me acknowledge upfront that there are exceptions within the groups - but I maintain that in general these are accurate.

Democratic "anti-war" activists are angry about the "funding bill". They want the troops home now. Al Qaeda shares that goal.

Troops and their families are outraged by the "funding bill" for other reasons - they don't want to quit. Needless to say, Republicans share that goal.

So who - besides the Democrats pushing it - likes the thing? Apparently Moqtada al Sadr - but he's not all that keen on it either.

I suppose part of my conclusion is in comments here:

The Dems real strategy is "slow bleed" - keep the war going with greatest possible losses until enough people "jump ship" to their side and they "pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." (An oval office, too.) Then they'll guide the country as it should be. (Translation: figure something out.)

And another peice is in comments here:

I'd add that winning a war isn't a guarentee of political victory for the current President's Party (see 1992 for most recent example) - while losing will virtually assure their defeat.

I'd add further that the Dems taking the White House doesn't concern me as much as it does others. But willingness to lose a war to do so - especially when it's historically evident (if not politically expedient) that they don't need to is a moral failure I won't forgive.

I've provided the defense of the bill from its authors above - but if anyone can provide any additional support of this monstrosity of a funding bill please feel free to use comments here to do so.

Getting the Message

John Boehner:

Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they’ll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.

General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week’s important briefing almost didn’t happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined – twice – because Democrats were originally “too busy” to schedule anything.

Hey, I'm pretty busy these days, too.

(Via The Tank)

Boehner is a Republican congressman - so it should be noted that Democrats would probably characterize the events (or non-events) he describes in a different light.

Likewise, the Democrats have little to fear from attending hearings with General Petraeus. While they might not like what they hear, that will matter very little - because American voters aren't going to hear it anyway. That's simply a matter of supreme confidence in their own complete domination of the field of message control.

Case in point from this week: Harry Reid declares the war is lost. In most regards this is a "dog bites man" story. But take a look at the circumstances in which he made the comment:

Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, described part of a meeting with Bush at the White House on Wednesday -- the same day bombs killed almost 200 people in Baghdad in the worst day of violence since a U.S.-backed security crackdown was launched there earlier this year.

"This is the message I took to the president," Reid said at a news conference.

"Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, of Nevada.

We'll talk violence in a moment. First, the boring part - that meeting. The meeting itself was to discuss the supplemental funding bill (aka the Iraq withdrawal bill - aka the 40+ billion in pork projects bill) currently making it's way to the President for veto. Want details of the meeting? Here are all the details the story provides:

In their meeting, Bush and congressional Democrats failed to settle their fight over funding for the Iraq war, as lawmakers pressed Bush to accept a troop withdrawal timetable.

And that's that. Probably 90% of Americans have no idea the meeting occurred. And certainly few realize that (as in the Petraeus story above) Democrats initially tried to present an attitude of "not interested":

“What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants,” Pelosi said at an afternoon news conference in San Francisco to discuss her trip to the Middle East last week. “That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind.”

But for whatever reason they had a change of heart, the meeting occurred, Senator Reid promptly declared the war lost, and the meeting itself became a sub-paragraph in a story devoted to that comment. And that, good friends, is message control - and Republican congressmen would do well to note that before taunting Democrats about attending meetings.

It does make for quite an exciting headline - especially on a day when nearly 200 Iraqi civilians are killed. And as noted, most of the rest of the details are boring - math stuff, even. For instance, what of the 40 billion in pork? Was it discussed in the meeting? Will it be a political payoff to eliminate the withdrawal conditions? I'd like to know - and it certainly seems that even the most partisan Republican or Democrat might share that concern - albeit with slightly different focus. But from the reporters, nary a peep...

*****

But certainly some questions deserve an answer. How goes the war? Who is winning? Those did get some attention in the coverage of Reid's declaration that it's "not us":

Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, described part of a meeting with Bush at the White House on Wednesday -- the same day bombs killed almost 200 people in Baghdad in the worst day of violence since a U.S.-backed security crackdown was launched there earlier this year.
<...>
Suspected Sunni al Qaeda militants detonated a string of bombs in mostly Shi'ite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday. The worst was a truck bombing that killed 140 people in the deadliest single insurgent attack since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

That certainly is an example of fate smiling on the Democrats - albeit with a sinister smile. While violence occurs daily in Iraq, to have one of the most horrific attacks in history occur on the day of the meeting with the President is certainly an act of providence they could not possibly welcome.

As it was when the exact same thing happened three weeks prior, immediately before the congressional Spring Break:

March 24, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House of Representatives voted yesterday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year - a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

March 25, 2007:

BAGHDAD — Suicide bombers struck in force across Iraq on Saturday, killing at least 46 people and wounding scores in an explosion of street violence after days of relative calm.

In the deadliest attack, a man driving a truck with explosives hidden under bricks detonated his bomb at a police station under construction in the south Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, a Sunni insurgent stronghold.
<...>
Another suicide bomber detonated his explosives in a candy store in the northwestern city of Tall Afar, killing 10. Three more struck checkpoints and a police station in the northwest, along the border with Syria, killing six.

Later:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide truck bombing in the northern city of Tal Afar last week is the deadliest single attack since the Iraq war began in 2003, a high-ranking Iraqi Interior Ministry official said Monday as a new death toll for the blast surfaced.

The Wednesday attack -- in which a truck packed with 4,000 pounds (1,814 kilograms) of explosives detonated in a Shiite area of the city -- was initially blamed for 85 deaths, according to an Iraqi army officer in Tal Afar who estimated the death toll Thursday. Hundreds of others were wounded.

But the Interior Ministry official said Monday that the death toll was 152, making it the war's deadliest single attack.

Until this week*.

Pure coincidence?

No:

To achieve their second goal, turning Americans against the war, the mujahideen need to shape their operations "to support anti- war sentiment in the west", he says.

Let's not go tinfoil hat here - the Democrats aren't in collusion with al Qaeda. It's a simple matter for the terrorist group to time their attacks to coincide with very public, and very scheduled events in the United States. One doesn't need a "mastermind" to intuit that - it would be tactically ridiculous to act otherwise.

Of course, message requires medium - and we have media. One might expect someone therein to notice the synchronicity of operations and recognize something beyond divine providence or the whims of war...

Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, described part of a meeting with Bush at the White House on Wednesday -- the same day bombs killed almost 200 people in Baghdad in the worst day of violence since a U.S.-backed security crackdown was launched there earlier this year.

"This is the message I took to the president," Reid said at a news conference.

"Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, of Nevada.

...or not.

Violence isn't boring - it is something else entirely. Something of which we are not fond - something we prefer not to dwell upon, something we choose not to examine in too great detail - it is far easier to condemn it, then turn away without noticing the gory details.

This, good friends, is al Qaeda message control.

*****

So given their supremacy in message control, one might think it a good tactic to appear to be grabbing the Democrats by the hand and forcing them to sit and listen to General Petraeus - someone who may be able to garner at least some attention for the counterpoint. But if Congressman Boehner - or any other individual - believes the Democrats will be intimidated by hearing the message a politically neutral (although deeply involved at the pointy end of policy) and ostensibly respected visitor might bring to the table, he'd best think again.

"The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
<...>
"A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations."
-- President Bush announcing the new strategy for Iraq, January, 2007

"Coalition and Iraqi soldiers and police have had some tough days as well. It is such violence that Iraqi and coalition forces will work together to reduce in the months ahead, recognizing, to be sure, that some sensational attacks inevitably will continue to take place, though every effort will be made to reduce their number by identifying and destroying the networks and facilities of the bombers, and by interdicting those who would visit such violence on the Iraqi people.

"We and our Iraqi partners recognize that improving security for the Iraqi people is the first step in rekindling hope. The upward spiral we all want begins with Iraqi and coalition forces working together and locating in the neighborhoods those forces must secure. This concept features Iraqi and coalition soldiers partnering with local police to establish joint security stations, such as the one we began establishing in Sadr City on Monday, as well as combat outposts to ensure continuous presence in local communities.
<...>
"As citizens feel safer, conditions will be set for the resumption and improvement of basic services. This is hugely important.
<...>
"Indeed, our operations will endeavor to provide Iraq citizens and leaders a chance to mend that fabric. If we can do this -- and I do believe that Iraqi and coalition soldiers and police will be able to improve levels of security for the Iraqi population -- then the Iraqi government will have the chance it needs to resolve some of the difficult issues it faces, to develop the capacity of its institutions, to improve the delivery of basic services to its citizens and to reconcile the differences between the factions that are the stakeholders in the new Iraq. Our effort, thus, will be to provide the Iraqi government an opportunity to shape the future of a new state in an ancient land.
<...>
"In an endeavor like this one, the host nation and those who are assisting it obviously are trying to determine over time who are the irreconcilables and who are the reconcilables. And they're on either end of the sectarian spectrum, of ethnic spectrums, political spectrums and so forth. And of course, what the government is trying to do, what those supporting the government are trying to do are to split the irreconcilables from the reconcilables and to make the reconcilables part of the solution rather than a continuing part of a problem, and then dealing with the irreconcilables differently. And that is certainly what the government of Iraq is doing and what those who are supporting the government of Iraq -- what the coalition is also doing, in very, very early stages.
<...>
"With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.

"A political resolution of various differences, of this legislation, of various senses that people do not have a stake in the success of the new Iraq, and so forth, that is crucial. That is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. And again, that clearly has to include talking with and eventually reconciling differences with some of those who have felt that the new Iraq did not have a place for them, whereas I think, again, Prime Minister Maliki clearly believes that it does, and I think that his actions will demonstrate that, along with the other ministers."

-- General Petraeus, first briefing from Baghdad, March, 2007.

Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, challenged President Bush on Saturday over his threat to reject an Iraq spending bill if it calls for a troop withdrawal...
“With his veto threat,” she said in a statement, “the president offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily.”

That, good friends, is message control.

*****

But certainly, in speaking to congress, General Petraeus can "clarify" issues. After all,

When questioned directly, Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job as commander of MNFI without the additional 21,000 troops President Bush has pledged to Iraq.

...and,

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."

Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."

...but,

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), until recently chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a co-sponsor of one of those resolutions, later explained to the general that he needed to be more careful about appearing to wade into a political debate and warned Petraeus to not let himself be trapped into portraying members of Congress as unpatriotic for disagreeing with President Bush.

Proving that Republicans can practice message control, too.

And anyhow, if the General doesn't behave himself, and insists on talking "political" issues, well, the Democrats are ready for that, too...

*****

Senator Reid was a busy man this week:

Flanked by two former Army retired generals Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blasted President Bush for “clinging to a failed escalation strategy” in Iraq and “failing our troops and our country.”

One general went so far as to say that active duty military officers were being used as “props” by the Bush Administration.

Reid is scheduled to meet with the White House this week to negotiate the Iraq supplemental spending bill Congress passed before Easter recess that contains a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that would cut funding for the troops or dictate a withdrawal date, but Reid said “the President is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it.”

With a banner behind them that said “Support the Troops” and “Transition the Mission” Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.
<...>
Gen. Johns said active service military officers, like Gen. Petraeus, were being used as “props” by the administration. “The American people need to be told the truth. The only reason I speak out as a retired officer is the President, as all Presidents do, use the active duty military as props to make it appear that the military is united behind his policy.”

The only things new about the Democrats using Generals are the specific names. Last year they had a different crew.

Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time.

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare. . . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today."
<...>
Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.

"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.

That call for a surge was why they had to be replaced on the podium, of course.

You probably heard that last year's generals had called for Rumsfeld to be fired - but did you know they had called for a surge?

That, good friends, is message control.

2006 - before shifting strategy: Failed strategy

2007 - after shifting strategy: Failed strategy

That's called sticking to the message.

*****

And if you'd like to see a subtle shift in message - how about this: In the early days of the surge, Democrats wanted to pretend it hadn't begun. Now - with implementation half way accomplished, it's a complete "failure".

What you don't read (or don't know) is part of message control, too.

One thing generally absent within stories that bring "into question the US-backed security plan for the capital" are any attempts to answer said questions. But explanations of exactly what Coalition Forces are doing are available and unclassified - in the broader details - thus there's no valid reason to leave the reader to conclude that the answer is "nothing".

But for reasons as inexplicable as the motives behind suicide attacks on university students, most reporters are content to do just that.

So don't read this, either.

*****

But we began by discussing a possible meeting between General Petraeus and congressional members next week. (And oh by the way, that day might be a good day for a lock-down in Baghdad.)

So is this meeting hopeless? No - significant advances can be made. In the interest of readiness, the General may want to request a copy of upcoming schedules - or at least a couple of days "heads up" to any future key votes or meetings on their plan for withdrawal. If the Democrats don't see that as a threat to message control, they'd probably oblige.

That bit of take-away intel probably won't counter the negative impact on American military efforts from the inevitable press releases and bumper sticker quotations masked as news stories that result from the briefing, but it just might save a few American and Iraqi lives.

*****

In the interest of fairness, here's one last key message, without additional comment:

Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

*****

UPDATE (April 27): Was I right or wrong? A post-briefing followup here.

*****

Notes:

*Sharp readers will note that this week's "deadliest single attack since the start of the war" killed fewer people than the previous "deadliest single attack since the start of the war" - but I see no point in quibbling over which data point/sound bite is most accurate - they are both bad.

But here's a story you didn't read about that bombing in Tal Afar.

And here's another example of message control. (And in all the brouhaha over McCain and Ware, who knew they agreed on the fundamental points? Another example of message control? You bet - I got a million of 'em...)

Beyond the Surge, The Strategy

(A companion piece to this entry can be read here: Slaughter)

More University Killings?

BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber killed 12 people outside a Baghdad take-away shop on Thursday, one day after 190 people died in a bombing blitz that brought into question the US-backed security plan for the capital.

The latest bomber blew up his car in the central Jadriyah district -- a majority Shiite area -- killing 12 and wounding 28 and also setting ablaze a nearby truck loaded with gas cylinders, a security official said.

The force of the blast ripped through civilians outside the popular Hassan take-away eatery, where university students had stopped to buy lunch, said a police colonel scrambled to the scene.

One thing generally absent within stories that bring "into question the US-backed security plan for the capital" are any attempts to answer said questions. But explanations of exactly what Coalition Forces are doing are available and unclassified - in the broader details - thus there's no valid reason to leave the reader to conclude that the answer is "nothing".

But for reasons as inexplicable as the motives behind suicide attacks on university students, most reporters are content to do just that.

Kudos to the New York Times (yes, the New York Times) for not leaving that gap in their report on this week's atrocities:

American commanders have said that the Baghdad security effort has reduced the kinds of sectarian killings associated with Shiite death squads, in part because of the decision by many militia fighters to lay low. But the plan has failed to curb the spectacular attacks, many of them suicide bombings, that have become a gruesome hallmark of the Sunni Arab-led insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. As a result, commanders say, overall civilian casualty rates are actually higher now than they were before the plan was initiated.

“As we’ve said before, it’s going to be a tough fight,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an American military spokesman. But, he added, “The plan is not even fully implemented yet.”

Two American brigades — a total of about 7,000 soldiers — are still scheduled to arrive in Iraq and join three other brigades that have poured into the capital and surrounding areas, he said. American commanders say their strategy to prevent these sorts of attacks focuses on rooting out insurgent redoubts in predominantly Sunni towns and villages on the capital’s periphery, or what they call “the Baghdad belts.”

With only 60% of the surge troops deployed, there are obvious holes in the perimeter. But the strategy is in place to take those into account:

Before the surge of forces, the 1st Cavalry Division headquarters was commanding the Multi-National Division-Baghdad (MND-B). Major General Joseph Fil Jr had responsibility for all the forces in Iraq’s capitol city, a city the size of Los Angeles with a population of more than 6 million. With the addition of several new brigades, it was painfully obvious that the 1st CAV HQ would need some assistance. A new command was established called the Multi-National Division-Central (MND-C) and this command was given responsibility for the brigades on Baghdad’s outskirts.

As the New York Times reported,

“A high-priority mission is finding these car bomb factories and getting rid of them, and capturing and killing the terrorists who make the bombs,” Colonel Garver said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. Because of the complexity of building a car bomb — the process can require a near-complete dismantling of the vehicle — most are probably made in sparsely populated areas where the work can be more easily concealed, the American commanders say.

i.e., not Baghdad, but "the belts".

Side note: Joe Biden, perhaps through lack of knowledge of the situation, recently attempted to point to the belts as a failure of the strategy:

While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.

While his very use of the term "belt" suggests he knows full well he's giving a half truth (and disparaging our efforts), I'll acknowledge that fighting terrorists won't reduce violence until the fight is over - but then return to explaining the plan.

Take a look at a map and the strategy becomes clear. Multi-National Division - Baghdad (MND-B), Multi-National Division-Central (MND-C), and Multi-National Force - West (the Marines and Soldiers in Anbar) divide responsibility for three connected geographic regions that are the focus of the strategy for Iraq. All, along with coalition forces in other areas of Iraq, are under the command of General Petraeus, Commanding General, Mutli-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I).

While Iraqi Army troops are also a significant factor in the surge - these will be the last areas for which security authority will be transferred. (And by the way - the American goal is to leave Iraq. The difference in American political Party views is the definition of victory and their vision of the land left behind.)

Meanwhile, back to the New York Times:

The Baghdad security plan calls for 28,000 additional American troops, as well as thousands of Iraqi soldiers, most of whom will be deployed in the streets of the violent capital in an attempt to pacify it. But Mr. Maliki said the gradual transfer to Iraqi authority would continue, with three provinces in the relatively tranquil region of Kurdistan the next to come under Iraqi security authority, followed by Karbala and Wasit Provinces in the south.

“In this way, province by province, we will reach the end of the line before the end of the year,” the prime minister said in a speech delivered by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, his national security adviser. The speech observed the transfer of the southern province of Maysan from British to Iraqi control. Maysan is the fourth of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be handed to Iraqi security forces.

That end of the year prediction might be overly optimistic - but I could be wrong. An important distinction: Provinces under Iraqi authority are not free of violence or threat of future failures - they are simply locations where authority has been transferred. While Baghdad and Anbar are essential to ultimate success, al Qaeda retains obvious ability to choose battlefields in Iraq, and the struggle goes on.

For now, with the surge as yet incomplete, Baghdad violence increases - but Anbar is heading in another direction altogether. This is not amazing coincidence. The bad guys have "limited resources" too - they are not as invincible or unbeatable as Joe Biden (or anyone else) would have you believe - and they are feeling "the squeeze".

It's an early effort in a long war, but for a look at the implementation of the "belt" strategy thus far, here's Bill Roggio.

And for some finer details on the strategy, read this.

Slaughter

With 60% of the surge troops in place, do you think al Qaeda feels a sense of urgency? They can't stop the surge, but I do believe they believe they can get others to do so.

Almost 200 hundred dead in Baghdad. This isn't "sectarian violence" - though it may ignite that fuse. Given recent developments, these attacks were the work of al Qaeda and any groups with wich they remain allied. But it does stand (as the media describes it and as the attackers intended) as one of the bloodiest days of the war - certainly since the March 24 attacks.

Some might claim the March 24 attacks were timed so the news would coincide with that of the House vote on the Iraq Withdrawal Bill. Some might notice that this week's attacks coincide with the return of congress from Spring Break, with the Iraq Bill once again foremost on the agenda.

No doubt that's just coincidental. (Likewise, predictable.)

*****

Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu...

-- Osama bin Laden, 1996 Fatwa

John Miller, ABC: Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

Osama bin Laden: After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...

John Miller, ABC: The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?

Osama bin Laden: I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration ... . We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world, especially the Islamic world. American presence in the Gulf provides support to the Jews and protects their rear. And while millions of Americans are homeless and destitute and live in abject poverty, their government is busy occupying our land and building new settlements and helping Israel build new settlements in the point of departure for our Prophet's midnight journey to the seven heavens. America throws her own sons in the land of the two Holy Mosques for the sake of protecting Jewish interests. ...

The American government is leading the country towards hell. ... We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews. If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil, just as Ramzi Yousef and others have done. This is my message to the American people. I urge them to find a serious administration that acts in their interest and does not attack people and violate their honor and pilfer their wealth. ...

John Miller, ABC: In America, we have a figure from history from 1897 named Teddy Roosevelt. He was a wealthy man, who grew up in a privileged situation and who fought on the front lines. He put together his own men - hand chose them - and went to battle. You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt.

--Osama bin Laden, ABC News, 1998

The management of savagery is the next stage that the Umma will pass through and it is considered the most critical stage. If we succeed in the management of this savagery, that stage (by the permission of God) will be a bridge to the Islamic state which has been awaited since the fall of the caliphate. If we fail – we seek refuge with God from that – it does not mean end of the matter; rather, this failure will lead to an increase in savagery!!

This increase in savagery, which may result from failure, is not the worst thing that can happen now or in the previous decade (the nineties) and those before it. Rather, the most abominable of the levels of savagery is (still) less than stability under the order of unbelief [nizām al-kufr] by (several) degrees.
<...>
"Paying the price" must be accomplished even if it is after a long period, even if it is years.

The enemy should be reminded of that in a statement justifying the operation of "paying the price," which will make a deep impression on the leaders of the enemy that there is no hostile action they can undertake against Islam and its people, or against the mujahids for which they, their supporters, or their most powerful institutions will not pay a price over a long or short period of time. On account of that, feelings of hopelessness will creep into the enemy and he will begin to think about leaving the arena on account of his hopelessness because of his love for the world in the face of generations of mujahids who will persist in the battle and not be agitated by upheavals, but rather motivated by them to respond.
<...>
O people! The viciousness of the Russian soldier is twice that of the American soldier. If the Americans suffer one tenth of the casualties the Russians suffered in Afghanistan and Chechnya, they will flee and never look back.

---The Management of Savagery (also translated as The Management of Barbarism) - an "al Qaeda handbook" authored in 2004 by Abu Bakr Naji and found on al Qaeda web sites.

To win the war against the US military and Badr, Colonel Jassam advises the Omariyun to follow two short-term goals - to cement mujahideen control over the Ramadi area, and to stage operations that will increase pressure on US opinion to withdraw troops.
<...>
To achieve their second goal, turning Americans against the war, the mujahideen need to shape their operations "to support anti- war sentiment in the west", he says.

--- Former Iraqi Col Watban Jassam to militant groups in Anbar, 2005

With a banner behind them that said “Support the Troops” and “Transition the Mission” Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.

-- America, 2007

Five Seconds

Mark Steyn on Virginia Tech:

Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others.

He precedes that with "I’m not sure I’m ready to go the full Derb but I think he’s closer to the reality of the situation than most."

That's a reference to John Derbyshire's comment at the Corner:

As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.

Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.

As you might expect, that's drawn some heated response from keyboard warriors, who think the internet is a battlefield. I'll not pile on with them, my own flight or fight response has been tested elsewhere - less than many, more than most, and still a great unknown until next time - so I leave blog combat about such issues to those who will know no other form.

*****

Besides, we now know of the courage of holocaust survivor Liviu Librescu, and there may have been similar acts about which we may never know.

But I confess that after about one second of stupefied shock upon hearing the shooting story, prior to learning any details, one of my first responses was along the lines of how the hell could he get so many? (And yes, I assumed the shooter was male.) My first thought - that he'd taken out a class, one by one, in one room - turned out to be wrong. But some of the comments I heard phoned in to the news from alleged unshot survivors - and others who described their experiences in writing - confirmed some of my other assumptions. They offerred compelling descriptions of hiding, of debating whether to block doors the shooter hadn't entered, admissions of waiting to die and hoping not to and of not knowing what to do...

You might think I'm setting out to defend Steyn, Derbyshire, or any who might have echoed those thoughts - I'm not. In fact, I'm the father of a son and a daughter who are the same approximate age as most of the victims. And that's the second thought that hit me - and that happened at about second two after hearing the news.

"Could my own kids have done something other than wait?"

They are also, as Steyn notes, approximately the same age as the younger men and women currently serving in Iraq. And from that came the next car in my own train of thought - one that arrived during second three: there were no Anbar vets in Norris Hall. That could be wrong, too.

But this was second four.

As it was for most of us who knew it before we read it, and who upon reading said, yes, that's exactly it. And who, upon hearing this week's news thought at approximately second five: yes, there it is again. And yes - I wish I could have been there.

And I would recommend a reading to Messrs. Derbyshire and Steyn, and those who would feign outrage towards them, and all others who were in any way touched by events of the day.

In a very few days I will board a plane and return to a far away place. Because there are wolves there, and because there are sheep.

While here my children will pursue their college careers.

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

Speaking of Transition the Mission...

On April 18, 2007, Iraqi authorities assumed responsibility for maintaining the security of Maysan Province in southeastern Iraq. The transfer, known as Provincial Iraqi Control, was directed by the Iraqi Ministerial Committee on National Security.

Maysan is the fourth (of eighteen) Iraqi provinces where security control is now in the hands of Iraqis, with Coalition forces standing ready to provide assistance if needed. In a ceremony on July 13, 2006, Muthanna province was the first to transfer. The second province to transition was Dhi Qar in September, followed by Najaf in December.

More here.

Transition the Mission!

Last year the Democrat's favorite retired generals had two goals: get rid of Don Rumsfeld, and get more troops into Iraq:

Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time.

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare. . . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today."
<...>
Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.

"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.

This year they've been replaced by new favorites:

Flanked by two former Army retired generals Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blasted President Bush for “clinging to a failed escalation strategy” in Iraq and “failing our troops and our country.”

One general went so far as to say that active duty military officers were being used as “props” by the Bush Administration.

Reid is scheduled to meet with the White House this week to negotiate the Iraq supplemental spending bill Congress passed before Easter recess that contains a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that would cut funding for the troops or dictate a withdrawal date, but Reid said “the President is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it.”

With a banner behind them that said “Support the Troops” and “Transition the Mission” Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.
<...>
Gen. Johns said active service military officers, like Gen. Petraeus, were being used as “props” by the administration. “The American people need to be told the truth. The only reason I speak out as a retired officer is the President, as all Presidents do, use the active duty military as props to make it appear that the military is united behind his policy.”

"Props", he said, apparently without irony.

Speaking of props, let's give props to the Dems for flexibility, message control (did you know those retired generals were calling for a troop surge?) and the capability to reduce any national security position to a bumper sticker.

By the way, in case you're confused, this week Reid favors keeping a small number of troops in Iraq:

Reid also repeated assertions that Congress was committed to funding the troops, despite the leader's support for separate legislation that would cut off money for combat missions after March 2008.

Reid said his promise to fund the troops is not at odds with the proposal because the measure would fund troops to stay in Iraq so long as they were engaged in non-combat missions. Those include counterterrorism and training of Iraq security forces.

Putting the "Fun" back in Funding

The Washington Times:

Pelosi Stalls On War Bill Conferees

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday delayed appointing lawmakers to finish a war-funding bill, putting off the emergency legislation for the second day since returning from the House's two-week spring break.
<...>
Both bills contain about $20 billion in nonmilitary spending, including pork-barrel projects that lured support from some skeptical lawmakers, bringing the Senate bill to $123 billion and the House version to $124 billion.

Elsewhere (link subscription-only):

Murtha Blasts Pentagon For Trying To Pressure Congress Regarding Supplemental

According to the April 16 memo from the Army secretary to members of Congress, the Pentagon plans to ask Congress for the approval to reprogram $1.6 billion from Navy and Air Force personnel accounts to pay for Army operating expenses and outlines the potential consequences of a failure to pass the supplemental.

...John Murtha (D-Pa.) said the public nature of the Pentagon's unapproved reprogramming request "gets under my nerves" and argued the statement was sent to pressure Congress.

"It's just irritating," Murtha said, adding that the subcommittee has responded to the needs of the military in the past. He added that the Army is not going to be in "dire straits" until June.

Though "dire straits" may indeed be some weeks away, the impact is already being felt. Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined the Pentagon's plans for dealing with budget shortfalls last month.

The Extension

Or "Leaking on the Troops"...

For those who weren't aware: someone leaked the story:

Q Could you just clarify, you're changing the policy establishing an upper limit of a deployment. But does that mean that all the units that are deployed to Iraq are now extended -- all the Army units are now extended to 15 months?

And can you also tell us why you're making this announcement publicly now at the same time that the troops and their families are hearing it, because normally that's done -- they get notified first.

SEC. GATES: All the units that are there and all the units that will deploy are now extended -- will be extended to 15 months...

In terms of why we're announcing it simultaneously with the unit commanders, I'll be very blunt. Some very thoughtless person in this building made the unilateral decision yesterday to deny the Army the opportunity to notify unit commanders who could then talk to their troops 48 hours before we made a public announcement. And I can't tell you how angry it makes many of us that one individual would create potentially so much hardship not only for our service men and women, but their families, by giving -- by letting them read about something like this in the newspapers.

Followup media reports detailed how angry the soldiers were to learn the story from the media instead of their chain of command - without acknowledging the leak.

Anger and dark humor as U.S. troops learn of longer tours

Word of the extension arrived shortly after midnight at the rambling, two-story country villa near the Euphrates River that the soldiers from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, have turned into a joint American-Iraqi military base.

The news landed almost by accident - First Sergeant Jody Heikkinen spotted a story about it on the Internet - and the company officers were caught off guard. "We're trying to figure out what it means," said Captain Chris Calihan, 31, commander of Bravo Company.

That enabled these types of stories, too:

"I was praying for a year" deployment, said Audrey Frohnhoefer, whose husband, Capt. Tom Frohnhoefer, is serving his third tour in Iraq with the 3rd Infantry Division, based in Fort Stewart, Ga. "The worst part about the whole thing is that we know what to expect, and we don't want to do it," she said in a telephone interview from her home in Savannah, Ga., as her infant and toddler daughters cried in the background.
<...>
Congressional Democrats railed yesterday against the decision to extend Army tours, calling it a further buildup of a war that has no end in sight. They called on Bush to change what they termed a "failed strategy" in Iraq that continues to stress U.S. forces to the breaking point.

(Side note: 3ID soldiers were told before departing to advise their families that the deployment could be as long as 18 months.)

General Petraeus wrote this letter to military family members.

And you won't read about it in the papers, but deployed GIs are now finding out what really happened.

More Democratic Victories

Strategy

Democrats know they might lose this month's showdown with President Bush on legislation to pull troops out of Iraq. But with 2008 elections in mind, majority Democrats says it is only a matter of time before they will get their way. Senior Democrats are calculating that if they keep the pressure on, eventually more Republicans will jump ship and challenge the president - or lose their seats to Democratic contenders.

"It's at least my belief that they are going to have to break because they're going to look extinction, some of them, in the eye," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of his Republican colleagues.

Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

Okay, lets have a contest. Vote on which of the following war stories you think will most benefit American Democrats.

Option one:

A newborn baby was one of at least 14 children and adults killed when a suicide bomber detonated a lorry laden with explosives close to a primary school in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk yesterday.
<...>
Buthayna Mahmud, 10, was horrified to see the bodies of her classmates strewn on the ground in flames. "Everyone I saw was wearing the blue school uniform drenched with blood. Some of their dresses were torn. I only saw fire. I heard teachers and students shouting," she said. "When we rushed out of the school, we saw pupils on the ground, some of them burning."

"We were at the last lesson and we heard the explosion. I saw two of my classmates sitting near the window. They fell on the floor, drenched in blood," said Naz Omar, a girl in the fifth form. "They could not speak. I was terrified. I said, 'God is Great. I need my mother. I need my father'."

Option two:

The dreams 13-year-old Barak Muhammad (not his real name) had of leading a normal teenage life were dashed when his father sold him to al-Qaeda militants. Being mentally handicapped, he said he was considered a burden by his family and was told he would be better off sacrificing his life for his country.

“I don’t have a mother and never went to school. I was dreaming of a day that I would go to school like my other brothers, but I was considered different. My father was always telling me that I was a mistake in his life, a boy that was just bringing expenses and problems,” Barak said.

Barak's father sold him to al-Qaeda in Iraq for US $10,000 to support his remaining five children. Now, Barak is in training to fight US and Iraqi troops.

In case you're having a tough time chosing which one is best, perhaps you could think in these terms: which sort of story would Democrats like to see more of in order to pick up more support?

Write your answer on a congratulatory note and send it to Harry Reid, US Senate, Washington, D.C. Send courtesy copies to Moqtada al Sadr and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

Betting on defeat

And proud of it:

Democrats know they might lose this month's showdown with President Bush on legislation to pull troops out of Iraq. But with 2008 elections in mind, majority Democrats says it is only a matter of time before they will get their way. Senior Democrats are calculating that if they keep the pressure on, eventually more Republicans will jump ship and challenge the president - or lose their seats to Democratic contenders.

"It's at least my belief that they are going to have to break because they're going to look extinction, some of them, in the eye," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of his Republican colleagues.

Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

Unless the terrorists lose.

Update: Moqtada al-Sadr wants American troops out of Iraq too, but is willing to lose seats in the effort:

BAGHDAD — Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his ministers to quit Iraq’s government on Monday in protest at Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s refusal to set a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

(Okay, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, I should point out that Sadr's bloc isn't giving up Parliament seats - just cabinet positions.)

"I've got good news and bad news", he said...

Well, doc, give me the good news first:

Sunni Factions Split With Al-Qaeda Group

Key Sunni militant groups are severing their association with al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that claims allegiance to the organization led by Osama bin Laden. The split could help isolate a primary foe of the United States in Iraq...

In the Sunni heartland of Anbar and other provinces, Sunni groups are accusing al-Qaeda in Iraq of killing, kidnapping and torturing dozens of their fighters, clerics and followers. One leading Sunni extremist organization, the Islamic Army, says al-Qaeda has killed more than 30 fighters from different armed factions in recent weeks.

...the emerging rift represents the Sunni groups' most decisive effort since the 2003 invasion to distance themselves from al-Qaeda in Iraq.

It probably won't help al Qaeda that their suicide attack in the Green Zone managed to kill only one Iraqi civilian - a Sunni Member of Parliament.

Iraq's Parliament Defiant After Green Zone Attack

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's parliament met in an extraordinary session of "defiance" yesterday, the Muslim day of prayer, and declared it would not bow to terrorism.

A bouquet of red roses and a white lily were placed on the seat of Mohammed Awad, the lawmaker killed in the parliament dining hall suicide bombing. Al Qaeda took responsibility for the blast.
<...>
The unprecedented Friday session of parliament was called to send "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this [political] process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue," said Mr. al-Mashhadani, a Sunni Muslim.

"We feel today that we are stronger than yesterday," he said. "The parliament, government and the people are all the same -- they are all in the same ship which, if it sinks, will make everyone sink."

Perhaps surprisingly, the Miami Herald found a rare "silver lining" in the dark cloud over the Green Zone:

Iraqis: Parliament Bombing Could Propel Peace

''Let them feel it,'' said Abbas Fadhil, 30, whose butcher shop also sits near where the car bomb killed the five bystanders a few weeks ago. ``It might end all the doubts that Sunnis have about Shiites and Shiites have about Sunnis.''

``This could be for our benefit. This might help to unify their hearts and make them come together.''

That may be noteworthy - perhaps the first time an American news story has sought something good amidst tragedy in Iraq. Normally, no matter what the news from Iraq - good or bad - the American media will find a way to tell you it's bad.

Back to our first story, now with my edits removed:

Key Sunni militant groups are severing their association with al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that claims allegiance to the organization led by Osama bin Laden. The split could help isolate a primary foe of the United States in Iraq but could also further splinter the Sunni insurgency and make it even harder to control, according to insurgent leaders and Iraqi and U.S. officials.

2007 Milblog Conference (UPDATED)

UPDATE:

Webcast/Chat Room News
We'll be offering live, worldwide streaming video of the 2007 MilBlog Conference. The video will be posted on MilBlogs, so if you're unable to physically attend the conference, you'll want to pick up the feed at MilBlogs. The web streaming can be seen by 1,000 concurrent viewers, and will be offered free of charge on a first come/first served basis.

Last year, we had the chat room feature in addition to the web streaming. To add the chat room is expensive, but we know how important it was -- and is -- to the virtual attendees, so we're going to try to raise $2,000 through donations so that we can add the chat room.

Click here to make your donation via credit card (Visa, MasterCard or AMEX). We need to raise $2,000 by April 19 so that our engineer has enough time to get the technical aspects of the chat room ready to roll.

Thanks the generosity of the guys at Techography, we now have chat room. Calimus and Bloodspite have donated their server, and their services, free of charge. How great is that?

More info on the chat room will be forthcoming.

And thanks Andi for all your efforts.

Now get registered!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the 2007 Milblog Conference less than a month away, it's time to stop procrastinating and get registered. This is an event you really do not want to miss, whether you're military or civilian.

Laurie says it best:

Why should you go? Because, if you are milblogger, a veteran, or a troop supporter, this is the must attend event of the year. If you want to know what is really going on in the world today, these are some of the people to hear it from. You won’t regret it.

And if you want to hear how fun and informative it was last year, it's all here

Here's this year's Attendee List so far.

If you haven't registered, what are you waiting for?

Biden Time

Busy, busy, busy...

Screw Iraq:

Bush's Troop Initiative Doomed, Biden Says

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said yesterday that the Bush administration's "surge" strategy in Iraq is doomed to fail and criticized Gen. David H. Petraeus for offering what he called an overly optimistic assessment of the situation on the ground.

Biden, in an attempt to separate himself from the crowded Democratic presidential field, also asserted that none of his principal rivals for the nomination has offered a viable plan for success in Iraq.

Invade Darfur:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate, called yesterday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

"I would use American force now," the Delaware Democrat said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."

In advocating the use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could "radically change the situation on the ground now."

From reading Biden's own words on his declaration of American defeat in Iraq, his main problem with "the surge" is that it hasn't accomplished it's goals yet - violence is only down where the surge troops have deployed. Apparently the other half of the troops shouldn't even bother deploying.

Biden's key point - that the media is telling all the "good news" possible from Iraq - is an absurdity. But it could seem plausible to the casual observer for the simple reason that they aren't. While he himself may or may not know the "rest of the story", his best hope is that Americans remain woefully uninformed.

He claims that the media accurately reports that Sadr has gone "to ground -- for now", (while Sadr is indeed in hiding, his call for his troops to attack American soldiers and our ongoing battles with them must be ignored to fully embrace this point), dismisses the Coalition work with the Anbar Salvation Council as "purported", and uses the recent suicide bombing in Tall Afar as al Qaeda intended it to be used. There's a "rest of the story" there too, but it didn't make the papers.

The harsh reality is that once we abandon Iraq we're going to have to put all the newly available troops in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda certainly will, and their recruiting is going to soar. Ultimately we'll lose that one, too, because they won't quit knowing full well that we will.

Then we can go to Darfur.

Behind much of the absurd talk of the impact of Iraq on military "readiness" there's a Democratic talking point: "Because we are in Iraq, we aren't capable of waging a war somewhere else." That's valid to an extent (but absurd to a greater one), but a more complete translation is that "because we are in Iraq we aren't capable of executing a war that Democrats could hypothetically support, because Democrats are tough on national defense, by golly, and there are plenty of wars in places other than Iraq we'd prosecute to prove it".

That's disturbing, I'm concerned they would do so a bit too eagerly given the opportunity. Biden seems to be going that route - but he could just be paying lip sevice to it to earn the "hawk" (or "tough guy realist") appellation the media bestows on guys like Murtha. (The actual "go to guy" for Dems when it's time to cut-and-run. See Somalia, for example.)

Spc. Mario Lozano

The New York Post:

Spc. Mario Lozano of Manhattan remembers the moment in Baghdad that changed his life forever - when, with eyes "the size of apples," he saw a vehicle barreling directly toward him and he opened fire.

"You have a warning line, you have a danger line, and you have a kill line," said Lozano, speaking out for the first time about the March 4, 2005, "friendly fire" incident in which he shot from a Humvee machine-gun turret at the vehicle, hitting an Italian war correspondent and killing an Italian intelligence officer.

The nightmare resumes for Lozano, of New York's Fighting 69th Infantry Regiment, next week - when he'll be tried in absentia by Italian officials on charges of murder.

"Anyone inside 100 meters is already in the danger zone . . . and you gotta take them out," Lozano told The Post from his brother's Chelsea apartment.

"If you hesitate, you come home in a box - and I didn't want to come home in a box. I did what any soldier would do in my position."

The resulting machine-gun burst hit Giuliana Sgrena, who had just been released by kidnappers, in the shoulder and killed Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, who had negotiated her release. The vehicle was racing to catch a plane home to Italy at Baghdad Airport, Lozano said.
<...>
Lozano said he had no choice: Like all grunts, he knew all too well what a car bomb could do. Two days before, "two good soldiers died on the road in the same way," he said.
<...>
Lozano and his dad, Mario Sr., blame Sgrena, a correspondent for the Communist paper Il Manifesto, for their nightmare. They criticize her for not making sure that her vehicle's whereabouts were known to the Army and then making a buck off the situation.

Sgrena, 57, was recently in New York promoting her book, "Friendly Fire: The Remarkable Story of a Journalist Kidnapped in Iraq, Rescued by an Italian Secret Service Agent, and Shot at by U.S. Forces."

"I'm sure her life isn't like mine," said a bitter Lozano, who works for his dad's construction business when he's not pulling National Guard duty.

"She's making money. She's famous. Meanwhile, I gotta live with the fact that a guy got killed because he didn't comply with orders and I was that guy who pulled the trigger."

More:

"So when the Italian journalist said there was no light flashed, that's not true?" Logan asked.

"It's not true," Lozano said.

"When she says there's no warning shots, is that true?" Logan asked.

"There was warning shots," Lozano said. "It's not true."

"When she says the vehicle was fired upon 3 to 400 times, is that true?" Logan asked.

"No, that's a lie," Lozano said. "Because in order for that to happen, I would have had to reload."

More:

There are serious problems with the account of the incident that Sgrena gives in speeches and in her book "Friendly Fire." The most absurd is her repeated suggestion that she may have been targeted for assassination. Ha! Lozano and his squad could have finished her off at the scene, had they intended.

Instead, two soldiers worked feverishly to try and save Calipari. Other soldiers carried the wounded Sgrena to their Humvee and raced her to the hospital.

After two years of bashing Lozano in the media, Sgrena says that a trial will determine the facts. Was she ever really interested in the facts?
<...>
Mario Lozano will not appear in Italian court for this show trial. But he may answer the charges; prestigious civilian attorneys are offering their expertise in demolishing Sgrena's fictions.

Meanwhile the soldiers and the friends of New York's 69th Infantry are standing by him. Those of us who've been there know what he lives with.

It's scary, but it's not a guilty conscience.

John Byrnes, author of the last New York Post piece above, has been blogging about the case here.

Democracy Whiskey Sexy Day

Note: this entry was orignally posted April 9, 2006.

Who writes this stuff?

Tanks roll. Throngs along the street raise fists in rage and celebration. What will America bring? According to the New York Times ( a paper with recent credibility issues) one answer from a local is "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy!" The phrase catches on with many. It becomes a slogan on t-shirts, bumper stickers and Blogs across America. Songs are written, recorded, and made available via internet download overnight. Hooray! With only a few deaths we've brought Democracywhiskeysexy to Iraq.

The celebration continues into the streets of downtown Baghdad as toppling statues of Saddam provide photo ops for journalists shocked that "the Big Story" is ending so soon. Absolute, total, and stunning victory leaves them starving for some angle they can use to paint a picture of desperation for their readers "back home." The quagmire of their dreams has failed to materialize, and no one wins Pulitzers for happy news. No one covers this story accurately or well. The pre-written news of dismal failures must now remain in the drawer of their minds forever. Pale attempts otherwise (coverage of riots and museum looting) will later be proved overblown and under researched. Public interest wanes.

Now return to the scene of the falling statue. Ignore the flag on the face thing, no one really cares. It's a distraction. Note instead the "crowd" of hundreds in a city of millions. I've never seen a public square so empty in daylight hours. It's likely that the vast majority were afraid as yet to face the Americans. It's certainly possible that many were not convinced that the next day would mark their departure and the return of Saddam. These people had experiences in their own lifetimes with America withdrawing hope at the last tantalizing minute. Pardon them then their lack of faith in the conquerors' good intentions. Still a thought haunts me: That given recent history, if in some way the U.S. could be invaded and conquered in like manner, the crowd of Democrats toppling statues and looting the Smithsonian would far exceed the numbers of Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad that glorious day...

Answer: me, a few weeks after the fall of Baghdad.

To appreciate my perspective you must remember that just a few days prior we had this:

Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed'
Monday, March 31, 2003 Posted: 0902 GMT ( 5:02 PM HKT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. war plan has "failed," veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett told Iraqi TV in an interview that aired Sunday.

"The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan," Arnett said. "Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces."

And mere hours before the fall of Baghdad, this:

Robert Fisk: Reports of airport assault premature

04.04.2003 - 8.00am
SADDAM HUSSEIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - So where are the Americans? I prowled the empty departure lounges, mooched through the abandoned customs department, chatted to the seven armed militia guards, met the airport director and stood beside the runways where two dust-covered Iraqi Airways passenger jets -- an old 727 and an even more elderly Antonov -- stood forlornly on the runway not far from an equally decrepit military helicopter.
<...>
Was it true, the Iraqi minister of information was asked at his daily 2pm press conference (11pm NZT) - a routine institution of usually deadly tedium - that the Americans were at the airport?

"Rubbish!" he shouted. "Lies! Go and look for yourself."

So we did.

And, alas for the Anglo-American spokesmen in Doha and the US officer quoted on the BBC, the Iraqi minister was right and the Americans were wrong. But it's a good idea to take these things, if not with a pinch of salt, then at least with the knowledge that there are always two reasons for every decision taken in this violent, ruthless land.

Sure, the Americans had been caught lying again - as they were about the "securing" of Nasiriyah more than a week ago - but was that the only reason journalists were permitted to visit Baghdad airport? We saw no Republican Guards - just as the Americans have themselves somehow failed to discover the 12,000 Republican Guards supposedly facing them.

Indeed, what I found most extraordinary was that there appeared to be absolutely no attempt to block the road into Baghdad from the airport.

Save for a few soldiers on the streets and a police squad car, you might have thought this a mildly warm holiday afternoon.

Along with predictions of house to house combat lasting months, thousands of body bags, millions of refugees...

None of which came to pass. But if I seemed less enthused than some at the fall of Saddam, I can say only that I'd seen troops in the victory parades at the beginning of the shooting phase of the long war, too - back in 1991. And the endless rotation of troops into Saudi supporting the 12-year air campaign that followed, troops whose mere presence on the sacred sands enraged Osama bin Laden to the point of ultimately attacking New York and Washington (following numerous successful smaller attacks).

And I'd already seen the lack of WMD used to declare failure - even before the statue fell. That was a softball pitched slowly by the invasion's architects (and supporters) to a hostile crowd. It pained me to watch that one drift to the plate, and while various umpires still debate the call I believe the decision to make that particular pitch in the first place was the worst of the war.

And besides,

I think when it comes to nations with children's prisons that's all the reason we need for a war.

Which is not to say we can cure all the world's ills - just that I don't mind trying.

Others felt differently. Scott Ritter:

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children--toddlers up to pre-adolescents--whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace."

Waging peace - a noble calling indeed.

Perhaps the war could have been avoided, had the media simply done their part in opposing the war. Perhaps then a "peace movement" could have formed. But here's an interesting confession - from the left wing Alternet, March 2003 - that senior leadership didn't have a plan:

'Bush Wins': The Left's Nightmare Scenario
By Mark LeVine, AlterNet.

As the American-imposed deadline for Iraqi "disarmament" approaches, the antiwar movement seems to be counting on one of two scenarios to frustrate the plans of the Bush Administration.

The first is an optimistic "We Win" scenario, which would result from massive protests and diplomatic pressure forcing President Bush to postpone an invasion indefinitely. (What has yet to be addressed is what exactly we win if Hussein remains indefinitely in power and the sanctions go on killing Iraqis.) With war seemingly imminent, the movement is being forced to fall back on a second scenario, "Everyone Loses," in which the warnings of a protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism bear their bitter fruit.

However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration's imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States' policies that is a major goal of the movement. But this outcome is less likely than many assume, and the antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: "Bush Wins."
<...>
In order to prevent such an eventuality, the movement needs to work overtime now to inoculate the American people against what the Carnegie Endowment for Peace has already labeled the "mirage" of democracy that will likely be planted in Iraq after a short war. It is not enough to press the General Assembly to vote for a "Uniting for Peace" procedure to condemn the upcoming invasion, or for people to sign the Iraq Pledge of Resistance; what are we going to say when Bush and Blair parade Hussein or his generals before war crimes tribunals? That we don't have jurisdiction to try them? Or when "elections" are held, are we going to say they're not legitimate?

Three years later - with much still unclear - at least we have our answers to those last two questions.

That author would like to cure the world's ills too - if only it weren't for that damn Bush:

We see how easy it will be for President Bush to seize the high ground by focusing on Hussein's crimes and supposedly protecting Israel, especially once a successful invasion reveals documentation of the extent of his crimes against his own people.

Even more discouraging, when I asked a senior organizer why the movement doesn't expand the focus of protests to include regimes like Sudan's, which is prosecuting a decade-long war of slavery and genocide, she replied that she feared President Bush would agree with protesters, and use their arguments as a pretext to invade Sudan next.

Such a fine day for a trip down memory lane. Cheers, and a happy Democracy Whiskey Sexy Day to you.

Original post: 2006-04-09 14:25:26

Four Years Ago

...Jules Crittenden was embedded with elements of the 3ID during the Thunder Run in Baghdad. His ongoing series detailing his experiences in those days continues with the latest entry here.

This was the big street fight we had expected the day before, when the Iraqis collapsed and let us in. Those were the Special Republican Guard, supposedly the Iraqi Army’s elite. These were included Republican Guard, as we saw from the bodies and equipment when it was over, but also included irregulars, the Saddam Fedayeen and foreign mujahideen, who advanced toward their fight and were willing to die.

Around 7:30 a.m. Wolford moved his tanks back into the intersection when the Warthogs were done. He called up our Psyops/fire-support 113 from the July 14th Square so the LT could call in artillery. At last we were allowed to roll forward.

This time, Wolford put the Red and Blue platoon tanks on the right, facing east toward the Jumhuriyah Bridge. White Platoon, which had lost its platoon sergeant, held the quieter west side facing Jaffa Street and the palace district gate behind us. We arrived to find the tanks firing into buildings where snipers were still lurking. The fire had abated considerably from what the tankers had experienced earlier, but RPGs and mortar rounds continued to explode periodically in the intersection. The Gold Bradleys rolled past us to resume their position to the north, up Haifa Street.

“Earplug time,” my notes say.

More here.

Though you might want to go back to yesterday's post, too:

LTC deCamp had said we’d hold the palaces for five hours and pull out, just to make the point. Maybe we’d stay overnight. I didn’t want to jam the crowded M113 with my gear, so the inverters, the chargers, the laptop and all my personal gear I kept in a small backpack stayed behind.

DeCamp had also said something about Col. Perkins wanting to get parking validation for 80 tanks in downtown Baghdad. I laughed at the joke, not fully getting the point. The undeniable presence of American tanks in downtown Baghdad was Perkins’ idea to undercut the Baathist regime’s propaganda in front of the international press and signal that Saddam was done. I hadn’t been watching TV, and knew nothing about Baghdad Bob.

More than at any point in this endeavor, I didn’t have a clue what was going on. I was too far down my own personal wormhole, too detached from higher command and unaware of the unorthodox plan was being precipitously brought together at higher levels to seize Baghdad. I just knew we were going in. All the way up from Kuwait, Wolford and his tankers had said we wouldn’t be going into Baghdad. The tanks would sit outside and the infantry would go in to do the street fighting. Tanks were too vulnerable in the close confines of cities. I didn’t believe this would be the case, opining that the lesson of Mogadishu was that you needed armored support and Baghdad had a lot of big, tank-friendly boulevards. I thought the tanks would go in to support the infantry, holding intersections while the infantry went block-to-block.

The tankers were right, in that armor doctrine was on their side. I was right about the big boulevards. Perkins was taking the whole thing a step farther, convinced he could do it as a predominantly armor operation, striking directly at the center of gravity. He got the higher command to agree. What would play out over the next three days has been described as the pivotal battle of the initial three-week invasion, a bold gambit that may have brought the Baathist regime down weeks and hundreds of lives ahead of schedule. It was the historic taking of a defended capital city by lightning armored assault, with infantry in the supporting role. The plan was still coming together on April 6, and was presented that night to the company commanders who would carry it out the following morning.

“The night of the 6th, I thought LTC deCamp had lost his fucking mind when he told us the plan,” Wolford told me later.

Or the day before...

I ran into LTC deCamp. I asked what he could tell me about the next day’s assault. He confirmed what we had heard. We were going into Baghdad at dawn. Maybe just for the day, maybe overnight. We were going to take the palaces, just to make the point. Col. Perkins, the brigade commander, wanted parking validation for 80 tanks in downtown Baghdad.

Anger Management

Military moms meet their congressman, and get the Adam Sandler treatment. Video here - watch Congressman Paul Hodes avoid answering their questions by insisting they are too angry for reason:

Q: Do you not believe we have an obligation to these people [Iraqis]?
A:Um, well, there's clearly nothing I'm going to be able to say to address how angry you feel...
Q: I'm very angry, I have a nephew that has served two tours of duty, is scheduled to go back a third time. He will be in Iraq when you cut your funds, and yes, that makes me very angry.
A: You may misunderstand my motivation, and what the impact of this will be if this is passed. There's nothing I'm going to be able to say given how angry you are...
Q: I feel very strongly that you're endangering our soldiers... If this Congress was sitting during World War II, we would be having this discussion in German right now.

(Via Instapundit.)

Local media coverage:

CONCORD – Family members of troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan poured out their anger and frustration at U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes yesterday, punctuated by emotional exchanges that illustrated the wars' divide on the homefront.

One woman stormed out of the session; several questioned Hodes' commitment to the troops while supporting a troop pullout deadline; and another woman chided the congressman's wife for picking up a pen to write down her e-mail address.

"My son will never come home," an angry Natalie Healy said of her son, Dan, who was killed in Afghanistan in June 2005. "He would be horrified and ashamed of this country for what it has done to the troops. You can take that back to Congress and tell every single one of those men and women."

Hodes last month joined a majority in the House backing an Iraq spending bill that set a timeline for a troop withdrawal and also included non-war related spending items that some said were needed to get the bill passed.

When Gerry Duncan of Nashua asked Hodes whether the bill would have passed if the non-war items weren't included, Hodes hesitated and said, "I don't know."

"I'm done," declared an angered Duncan, whose husband, Col. Richard Duncan, chief of staff of the New Hampshire Army National Guard, was injured in Afghanistan. She then walked out.

Sue Peterson of Weare, whose son Alex is a member of the 3643rd Security Force in the Army National Guard now in Iraq, said mixing money for the war with farm and other products was a disservice to the troops.

"I am so outraged and I'm trying to be calm listening to everybody," she said. But lumping everything into one bill was to "compare Alex and all the other soldiers to milk, peanuts, fish and spinach."

The "non-war related spending items that some said were needed to get the bill passed" total $40 billion dollars, including $25 million for spinach farmers, $74 million for peanut storage, $120M for shrimp research, $283 million in income subsidies for dairy farms, $400 million to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging, $400 million in additional heating subsidies for the poor, and $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible bird flu epidemic.

More here and here.

In fairness to Hodes, his response to his constituents is not an original thought - it's a crafted Democratic talking point, as evidenced by Nancy Pelosi's comment to the media that President Bush should 'take a deep breath and calm down' and pass their spending bill.

Related:

For non-military, former military, and family members of active troops, The Vistory PAC

For active military: Appeal for Courage

Carrots, sticks, and reconciliation

Major General Rick Lynch, Commander, Multi-National Division -- Center (Iraq) interviewed by 3ID's "hometown" (Savannah, Ga) reporters.

*****

Reconciliation:

General Lynch is focused on the soldiers, but has an eye on progress among political leaders in the U.S. and Iraq, too. As President Bush noted in announcing the new strategy, "A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations" - our goals in Iraq can't be achieved by the military alone.

General David Petraeus agreed - a point he emphasized in his first press conference from Iraq.

And one key non-military requirement acknowledged as critical by both men: "reconciliation":

With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq.

While noting

We are, in any event, still in the early days of this endeavor, an endeavor that will take months, not days or weeks, to fully implement, and one that will have to be sustained to achieve its desired effect.

The general added:

And again, I think we should watch actions in terms of reconciliation, and so forth, again, in the weeks ahead as the Council of Representatives reconvenes, and so on.

*****
Carrots:

This week the Iraqi government met another "benchmark" on the path to that goal:

Iraq Orders Pensions Paid To Hussein Officers

Iraq's prime minister yesterday ordered pension payments for senior officers of Saddam Hussein's military and offered a return to service for lower-ranking soldiers, a major step aimed at defusing the Sunni insurgency and meeting U.S. benchmarks for his government.

Many former top intelligence, security and military officials are believed to have joined the Sunni insurgency after former U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer disbanded Iraq's 350,000-member military in 2003, a month after Hussein's regime was ousted.

The Maliki statement said any former officer above the rank of major would be given a pension equal to that of officers now retiring. Former officers above major who wanted to rejoin the army were encouraged to check with the military command to learn if they were acceptable in the Iraqi army that is being rebuilt by U.S. forces.

Those who had the rank of major or lower may voluntarily return to the army.

Lower-ranking officers and enlisted men with scientific or medical training would be given jobs in an appropriate government ministry, the statement said.
<...>
The Bush administration has set out several benchmarks for Maliki's government. One is passage of the de-Baathification law to encourage Sunnis to rejoin the political process.

The draft measure sponsored by Maliki and Talabani would set a three-month challenge period after which ex-Baath Party loyalists would be immune from legal punishment for their actions during Hussein's rule.

The bill, which excludes former regime members already charged with or sought for crimes, also would grant state pensions to many Baathists even if they were denied posts in the government or military.

*****

Sticks

The first step to "reconciliation" is to set down weapons. Until combatants from both sides recognize their survival is actually more certain if they are unarmed, it won't happen. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's announcement of the new strategy sent a direct message to his fellow Shiites:

Iraq's prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday, as American and Iraqi troops prepared major military operations aimed at ending sectarian warfare in Baghdad.

Many did - in fact, indicators are that among the Shi'ite militias a majority complied. Others failed. This past week:

U.S.-Iraqi Raids Target Sadr Militiamen

Iraqi and coalition forces rolled into Diwaniya before dawn Friday to rout elements of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr's Al Mahdi militia that had fled the Baghdad security crackdown and sparked an increase in violence in regions south of the capital.

U.S. Army spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl said the troops faced "steady resistance through the day" from Sadr's militiamen. The U.S. troops had been called down from Baghdad to reinforce the Iraqi army's 8th Division and the region's Polish-led soldiers.

Frightened residents stayed inside and a curfew was imposed on the city, about 95 miles south of Baghdad, as the combined forces raided neighborhoods believed to be militia strongholds, officials said.

SEAL statue frightens parents

Navy SEAL Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz Jr., fell in action in Afghanistan in 2005:

Petty Officer Dietz, 25, was awarded the Navy Cross, the service's second-highest award for valor after the Medal of Honor, for fighting off an ambush by insurgents in Afghanistan despite being mortally wounded. His actions were credited with helping a fellow Navy SEAL escape.

Littleton, Colorado, plans to honor his sacrifice with a statue:

Plans for the memorial began last summer when the city started working with Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, and the Dietz family. The family raised $42,000 to cover the costs, with no public funding involved.
<...>
A bronze sculpture of Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz Jr. showing him cradling his rifle across his chest is scheduled to be unveiled July 4 at Berry Park here, where he grew up and attended school. The statue was modeled after a photo of the young serviceman.

Some of the locals are, of course, protesting:

But a group of parents wants the city to recast the statue or place it elsewhere, arguing that the site, near three elementary schools and two parks, is a hub for young children who could find the weapon disturbing.

"While our hearts go out to the family of this brave young man, we have serious concerns regarding the graphic and violent detail the statue portrays," stated a flier distributed recently in a nearby neighborhood.

Read this, too.

More Experts

James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group:

Unfortunately, more than 100 days after the Iraq Study Group released its report, we are further than ever from a consensus. Recent narrow votes in the House and Senate, largely along partisan lines, illustrate our country's continuing division on this critical issue.

The best, and perhaps only, way to build national agreement on the path forward is for the president and Congress to embrace the only set of recommendations that has generated bipartisan support: the Iraq Study Group report. The Iraq Study Group was composed of five Democrats and five Republicans. Each of us has strong wills and views. But we managed to find consensus for 79 recommendations that we suggested be carried out in concert. Our leaders could still use this report to unite the country behind a common approach to our most difficult foreign policy problem.

The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other countries.

Which helps explain this:

Democratic policymakers searching for a winning argument for why it's time to get out of Iraq have ditched expert advisers - and appealed to the public for help.

Exclusive: Poorly trained "reporter" gets facts wrong

A breathless exclusive from Editor and Publisher:

EXCLUSIVE: Soldier In New Friendly Fire Case Did Not Get Full Training

By Greg Mitchell

Published: April 04, 2007 6:20 PM ET updated 9:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON Two soldiers killed in Iraq in February may have died as a result of friendly fire, Army officials said Wednesday, not from enemy fire, as the press reported.

The military suspected friendly fire later in February but did not inform the dead soldiers' families of these new doubts.

One of the soldiers died just hours after arriving in Iraq -- and was one of those troops rushed to the country in the "surge" who did not receive full training.

Along with the reporter's lack of knowledge of circumstances, there are numerous factual errors in this report.

Among them: Zeimer's Brigade wasn't part of the surge. This being the only reason E&P is reporting the story at all, it's probably significant.

Update: Surprise! Leftists believe what they're told.

Timesaver: To spare more hole digging in comments, here's the July 2006 DoD announcement:

1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division from Fort Stewart, Georgia has been placed in a prepare-to-deploy status for possible deployment later this year.

They actually deployed to Iraq in early '07 - a bit later than planned.

This angle's already been tried, too:

Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division had so little time between deployments to Iraq they had to cram more than a year's worth of training into four months.

Some had only a few days to learn how to fire their new rifles before they deployed to Iraq -- for the third time -- last month.

Dress for Success

A pair of images has sparked a bit of controversy at polar opposite ends of the blogosphere.

The first, John McCain in Baghdad

The second, Nancy Pelosi in Syria:

The point of contention: their chosen attire.

Let's acknowledge up front that their clothing choices aren't random. They are in fact calculated, and to some degree a "propaganda" effect is intended. Likewise, both images are intended to demonstrate solidarity with a local population.

Here the similarities end, and the outrage among opponents begins. McCain's detractors were quick to point out his appeal to courage is false; Pelosi's that her symbolic capitulation is genuine. (On a side note: from what I can determine, the numbers of those expressing outrage over McCain appear greater by orders of magnitude above those expressing contempt for Pelosi.)

One could infer another argument over this imagery - perhaps defining the fundamental split among Americans today. On one side those who believe that a Global War on Terror could be ended if more people were willing to "armor up" - on the other, those who'd insist a path to peace would be found if more were willing to don the Burkha. (Both examples figuratively if not literally.)

Further compounding the arguments: both are right.

Oh, by the way:

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.
<...>
The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

If you believe that's simply about phrasing, you're firmly in group two.

The Experts Have Failed

Looks like the Democrats haven't found any Generals worth listening to lately:

Democratic policymakers searching for a winning argument for why it's time to get out of Iraq have ditched expert advisers - and appealed to the public for help.

Rank-and-file supporters have been asked to explain to the party why the troops should be brought home. And the best grass-roots tacticians could replace politicians as the public face of the Democrats.

"We want people like you to explain why it's time to end the war and bring our people home," party spokeswoman Karen Finney said in a circular sent to members.

Daily Kos readers are no doubt thrilled.

One significant problem the Dems have with experts is their near unanimous view of the hell hole Iraq will become if the US were to withdraw on their timetable, and the implications of that for the region and the rest of the world.

Here's what happened the last time the Democrats tried to consult experts. Fortunately, reporters were able to keep most of this information under wraps, and the "listen to the Generals" lie is still alive and well.

Here's another expert they won't want to hear:

Q: "What would you like to say to those who want American troops to leave Iraq tomorrow?" A: "I can only imagine the tragic consequences that would follow...and the blood... and the price we'd have to pay....a disaster..."

That's via Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger's Victory PAC:

I'm a liberal Democrat (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-progressive taxation, pro-equal rights, pro-environmental regulation, pro-public schools) who supported and supports the war in Iraq. As I tell my liberal friends "Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?"

I've been waiting for four years for the White House to start really explaining the war to the American people, and to do anything sensible at all to maintain the political capital necessary to keep America in the fight - to keep us from withdrawing because the war is too messy, or too long, or just plain makes us feel bad.

During that time I was blogging about the war and issues around it at Winds of Change.NET, felt I was doing my part, and hoped that the leadership of the country would wake up and realize that public support for hard things - like wars - must be earned and maintained.

I've given up, and decided that it's up to each of us to start doing more. To that end, I've decided to start a PAC that will offer support to Congressional candidates of either party who support a foreign policy that doesn't involve wishing problems away. Not necessarily support for the invasion of Iraq, or blind allegiance to White House policies - but some plan that's better than taking our ball and going home, leaving the country to become a bloodbath. All I ask is that they have some clue as to what we should do about violent radicalism in the Islamic world other than surrender, withdraw, and hope for the best.
<...>
What we'll be doing is - among other things - running short videos that I'll be getting from friends in Iraq - I've asked them to simply film a message they would send in responses to Americans who want to withdraw right now.
<...>
Next up will be videos from former troops, military families, and experts on the Middle East.

Once we get over this hurdle, I intend to build a web community of support that candidates we support can use for fundraising, finding volunteers, and reaching out to surrogates - veterans, military families, and experts on the Middle East.

He's looking for military family members and former GIs who'd like to appear in future videos, too. Contact info here.

The Long Shadow of Abu Ghraib

Bing and Owen West write of progress in Anbar (and the Anbar Salvation Council) in the WSJ's online Opinion Journal. Among many positive notes, this caution:

There remain problems that require military solutions, however. Neither the coalition nor the Iraqi government is prepared to imprison the sharp increase in killers like Abu Muslim who are being netted in the surge in Baghdad and the tribal awakening in Anbar. No one wants to take the heat from the mainstream press that would accompany the construction of prisons and the indefinite incarceration of several tens of thousands of insurgents.

In response to the 2003 abuses at Abu Ghraib, the U.S. military and the Iraqi government instituted a catch-and-release system that Sweden would find too liberal. Unlike uniformed prisoners who in past wars were held until the war was over, in Iraq most detainees are released within a few months. To some, this represents a scrupulous adherence to the rule of law, with every insurgent provided the right of habeas corpus.

To the sheiks, it is both naïve and deadly. The Iraqi judicial system in Anbar is nonexistent. Locals are quick to relate stories of killers who returned to murder those who snitched. So it's no surprise that while most insurgents are arrested, some simply disappear.

That's a side note in a larger narrative well worth the reading.

A previous look at the initial impact of the Abu Ghraib story on the larger war and the obvious implications for today's operations here. (With quotes from many, including Bing West.)

Afford?

Senator Harry Reid:

REID: AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD BUSH STRATEGY ANY LONGER

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, released the following statement today after comments made by President Bush at the White House:

The President today asked the American people to trust him as he continues to follow the same failed strategy that has drawn our troops further into an intractable civil war. The President's policies have failed and his escalation endangers our troops and hurts our national security. Neither our troops nor the American people can afford this strategy any longer.

Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure.

Given the $40 billion in pork projects the House and Senate have tacked on to this bill, I think the "afford" issue is the wrong attack.

Unless, of course, you are absolutely unconcerned about how the press will cover the story.

By the way, can anyone, pro- or con- the war, explain why spending an extra $100 billion then leaving is a good idea? (I'm really more interested in the anti-war response.)

Finally, here's how "the Pentagon" will respond if funds aren't made available in time. Because I already know there's no answer to my question above, I'll repeat here that the pork-laden bill to stop the surge and withdraw troops from Iraq is not the supplemental Iraq and Afghanistan funding bill that will ultimately (and hopefully soon) have to be debated in congress - it's a political ploy, and a dangerous one to be conducted in time of war.

Listen to the Generals?

Here's an interview with General Petraeus, at Op For.

"If the national leadership cannot not hang together as a national body, then how can you expect the national army to remain together?”

“You have to have a national government. You have to have national direction."

That's true of any nation, but you'll have to click through to see which specific country he's referring to.

Bloodshed in Tal Afar (II)

Tal Afar:

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.

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.

Jeff Jacoby asks the tough questions in the Boston Globe:

\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?

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.

Recent news:

Bloodshed in Tal Afar

Away from the headlines

The Islamic State of Iraq

Trouble in Sadr City

Death on cue

Meanwhile, back in Iraq