Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.
Original content copyright © 2006 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
Not talking about computers - I'm talking about this
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The wealthy Arab man, sporting a foreign accent, has just given an Iraqi teenager some cash and a bomb when police burst in and arrest him. "You come here from abroad and want to make this young man kill his Iraqi brothers?" an officer asks.Stucking funning. What, foreign Arabs are coming to Iraq on vacation and suddenly find themselves getting hostile glances? I cannot believe this is an actual news story.
The television ad, widely aired across Iraq in recent weeks and meant to encourage Iraqis to report suspicious behavior to police, is a startling example of a new strain of anger and discrimination against foreign Arabs in this Arab-majority country.
It even includes this quote:
Suspicion toward foreign Arabs stems, in part, from the fact that the Sunni-led insurgency has included many foreign fighters, most of them Arabs, who are blamed for deadly attacks that have claimed thousands of Iraqi lives.Of course, many of those innocent foreign Arabs might be reporters, hence the story...
But really, there are some reasons for suspicion.
On another area of group blog ettiquette, I hate to RE: my own post, but this added thought doesn't fit the original, but is tangential to this:
She seems to be writing as if the event described is well known, a failure perhaps shared by many with an over-developed ego.I just realized, that bit about thinking everyone is familiar with what you're talking about is a failure of more than a few folks in high places, and leads to a lot of scurrying by junior folks trying to figure out "what the hell he really meant by that."
This is compounded by juniors who fear being thought ignorant if they actually request clarification.
This somehow fits into "Greyhawk's rule of job security" - which is actually a universal truth about communication and language - and something I was discussing with Soldier's Dad in comments here.
On the other hand, the fun thing about "re" posts and group blogs in general is that the reader can find out what the heck you're talking about just by scrolling around. (And can even join the discussion.)
...of a title I just use the first few words of my post for the title, and add those three dots.
Sometimes, I can even break it off to where the resulting title is kind of witty. Other times not so much.
(But we ain't got no rules here.)
But now that congress has done their bit for al Qaeda and other killers in Iraq, it's time for them to return the favor. Expect their next best attempt at a Tet-like offensive soon...Today
BAGHDAD -- Insurgents launched a multi-pronged attack on a U.S. outpost north of the capital today, killing two U.S. soldiers and injuring 17, as violence in and around Baghdad left dozens of Iraqis dead.
Disjointed accounts of the 7 a.m. attack emerged in cellphone conversations with witnesses and law enforcement officials. An area police officer said the attackers came in three cars, at least one of them packed with explosives, and assaulted the downtown Tarmiya police station, used by U.S. forces as a base.
Insurgents opened fire with rockets mounted on a truck. Fuel tanks inside the base caught fire, setting off a huge explosion, said a police official and a Tarmiya resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
U.S. medical helicopters landed five times to evacuate the casualties. Two Iraqi civilians were also injured in the crossfire.
It's not the first assault on a U.S. outpost in Iraq, but such events are rare. Like all others, this ends with the attackers fleeing or dead. The tactical gain is negligible, the only forseable benefit being intimidation of the locals (aka "terrorism"), and perhaps some favorable press and even more strident calls for retreat from the usual suspects in Washington (none of either so far - thankfully).
I expected something more, (yes, more even than this), or something more innovative (our enemy is innovative, see 9/11 for example) - but I often did when I was in Iraq before the January, 2005 elections, too. The press always made more out of whatever did happen, but while phenomenally successful from a PR standpoint, invariably the attacks were - like this one - essentially innefective. (Yes, those killed might feel otherwise.)
But I suppose I still haven't learned my lesson. I still expect more.All done!
Here's a little algorithm, just for you, in case I again decide a four word post doesn't need a five word title.
Just roll a die. Odd number: Heh. Even: Indeed. On an edge or off the table: Offer not void in New Jersey.
Then you're all set.
Colonel Janis Karpinski blogs at the Huffington Post.
She seems to be writing as if the event described is well known, a failure perhaps shared by many with an over-developed ego. Or maybe the details she excludes are just, well, not supportive of her point.
Anyhow, here she is - endorsing an upcoming film:
When Ghosts of Abu Ghraib is broadcast across the country next week, I hope Americans are so annoyed and angry from watching the movie, it stimulates a renewal of demands for the truth and an independent commission to review the facts and render truthful conclusions.I'd echo that - but given the source I'm not sure this movie is going to advance the cause.
But on the chance that I could save time and taxpayer dollars otherwise thrown at an "independent commission", here's what's probably the best start you can get (warning! - these are fact-based, not opinion pieces):
Time permitting, I'll provide another "chapter" in time for the movie premier.
And anyone who wants to cite Colonel Karpinski as authoritative on anything might want to read this, first: Death Before Dishonor.
Some day someone might want to do a case study of a failure of command for a Service Academy or military professional development course - the Karpinski case would be useful for this, and valuable to students at various levels.
But even casual observers can search for the term "Karpinski" throughout the Taguba report and discover a wealth of information about how not to do things.
Including this example:
(U) During the course of this investigation I conducted a lengthy interview with BG Karpinski that lasted over four hours, and is included verbatim in the investigation Annexes. BG Karpinski was extremely emotional during much of her testimony. What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers.You can read that entire interview here. All done!
They are your friend. Do not fear them. ;-)
The challenge with Iran is to demonstrate that their various actions rather than making Iran more secure have made Iran less secure. Hence we've been treated to documentation of Irans unhelpful meddling in Iraq and in roughly the same time frame the Original OIF Campaign Plan showing that the US should have been down to a single brigade in Iraq by now.
The administration has also been very careful not to tie the smoking gun of Iranian supplied weapons to the leadership in Iran. If the evidence were to exist, an act of war by the State of Iran against the US occurred and US politicians would be left in the same box that the Iranian Hostage Crisis left them in. Some sort of normalized relations with an as yet to emerge moderate Iranian Government would be politically impossible for at least another generation.
The arguments being made by the usual suspects in the US are exactly the arguments the moderates in Iran need to be making I.E. No one in the US desires a war with Iran, look..they even want to pretend they didn't find our weapons in Iraq, but if you keep it up, that crazy "BushHitler" will bomb us back to the stone age and no one will be able to stop him.
Via Instapundit, Dollard says he's got the Petraeus plan.
I don't know why Dollard's getting the scoop, or why it's being released now, but it's an interesting read...
Well, we've seen the Democrats@War in the House.
Let's compare and contrast that with a Conservative@War.
Interesting poll results (and another link to our man Lex) here.
Check out MG Caldwell's Iraq briefing following that one. Reporters bombarded him with questions about Iran, and his responses read well when compared to what PowerLine's Major had to say. Note that clearly they (media) hadn't developed their storyline immediately after the first briefing on the topic, and had to re-attack here.
Why the great and misdirected outcry? I say
I suspect the media - in spite of vigorous denials by the administration - is trying to portray the US as on the brink of war with Iran. This allows Democrats - and Hillary Clinton in particular - to vociferously oppose this non-existent war. (To be fair, this also gets some conservatives very excited over the prospect of "taking out" Iran - their hopes will be dashed.)
A soldier, upset with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's preemptory dismissal of the Baghdad brief last week about Iranian equipment and expertise killing American soldiers, is able to send the brief to Power Line.
I'm assuming that an unclas brief presented to the press was releasable, but that's a pretty good assumption. This kind of direct engagement and countering of stupid and false information needs to be done at the lowest competent level, and we in the military need to support additional informational risk in enabling active duty folks to engage directly. Now how does it get through to the people who've already made up their minds another way?