Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Swansons is excellent- great formulas and prices
I also take their liver elixir formula
And for easymoney, they have a Japanese plum extract (mumefural) that is excellent for balancing out a too acid system
Dems on Iraq: Now What? Part II
Posted by: McQ
I covered the fallout from the Murtha admission below and how that will effect Congressional Democrats.
However, what is the major campaign issue the Democrats have been pushing during the run-up to the '08 Presidential election?
Iraq, of course.
Uh oh:
Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war.
Rep. Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee, said not a single constituent has asked about the war during his nearly two-week long Thanksgiving recess. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, said only three of 64 callers on a town hall teleconference asked about Iraq, a reflection that the war may be losing power as a hot-button issue in his strongly Democratic district.
First-term Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) - echoing a view shared by many of her colleagues - said illegal immigration and economic unease have trumped the Iraq war as the top-ranking concerns of her constituents.
In an interview with Politico, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) attributed the change to a recent reduction of violence and media coverage of the conflict, saying there is scant evidence that more fundamental problems with the Bush administration's policy are improving. Even so, he agreed voters are certainly talking less about the war. "People are not as engaged daily with the reality of Iraq," Hoyer said.
They normally aren't "engaged daily with the reality of Iraq" when they are able to satisfy themselves that things have changed for the better. That's simply human nature, and the reaction Democrats are seeing speaks to that dynamic pushing Iraq from the top issue to, perhaps, a concern. But it appears a possibility that it won't be the hot button issue Democrats expected, and frankly, were counting on to ride into the White House this next year.
Obviously all of the good news in Iraq could change pretty quickly with a new round of violence. But at the moment that doesn't seem particularly likely.
So what might Democrats be stuck with if the positive trend continues in Iraq? Well they might be stuck with trying to explain why they ended up on the wrong side of the Iraq issue (and how that burnishes their national security creds) while trying to change the subject to domestic issues by offering everything under the sun to voters "for free".
This election is becoming more and more interesting every single day.
CAN"T WAIT TO SEE HOW THE PEGBBOT SPINS THIS:
YOUR HERO MURTHA SAYS THE SURGE IS WORKING
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
Dems on Iraq: Now What? (Updates)
Posted by: McQ
Congressional Democrats risk looking like obstructionists on Iraq now that one of the staunchest anti-war critics in the House has declared "the surge is working".
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the leading anti-war voices in the House Democratic Caucus, is back from a trip to Iraq and he now says the "surge is working." This could be a huge problem for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who are blocking approval of the full $200 billion being sought by President Bush for combat operations in Iraq in 2008.
Murtha's latest comments are also a stark reversal from what he said earlier in the year. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, has previously stated that the surge "is not working" and the United States faced a military disaster in Iraq.
In fact, as you recall, he took Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon to task for saying it was working earlier in the year calling their assessment "an illusion" and making a point of the fact that they only spent 7 days there. Murtha's most recent trip was only 4 days, yet apparently it was enough for him to decide that the surge is working.
Even more to the point, he said this on June 3rd of this year, when Phase II of the surge (the kinetic portion) hadn't even begun:
"They [the White House] keep saying the news media is being negative," Murtha said. "They keep making excuses for the lack of progress. I've been hearing this month after month and I'm absolutely convinced right now the surge isn't working and I'm convinced that if they don't pay attention to what I'm saying and a lot of other members of Congress are saying they're going to have a disaster on their hands because the American public want the troops out of Iraq."
Given the progress he now admits, it seems a good thing they didn't listen to him. And it puts he and the Democratic leadership in Congress in a very tough position.
But Pelosi, who is scheduled to speak to a Democratic National Committee event in Virginia on Friday, will surely face tough questions from reporters regarding Murtha's statement on the surge.
"This could be a real headache for us," said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Pelosi is going to be furious."
I'm sure. Because, you know, progress in Iraq would be a bad thing for Democrats, wouldn't it? Recall what Democratic Rep Jim Clyburn said earlier this year when talking about the report Gen Petreus was about to give to Congress. He said that a positive report would be "a real big problem for us." And now, with Murtha's pronouncement and the polls showing more and more Americans are beginning to believe progress is being made in Iraq, the Democratic leadership has a real dilemma on their hands.
The most interesting aspect of this admission by Murtha will be the reaction of the Leftosphere. The first shot has been fired by HuffPo:
Compromising and capitulating are the only things the Democrats have been doing on this issue. Murtha's statement implies that some sort of deal can be reached with the Republicans in which a somewhat extended troop withdrawal timetable will be agreed upon. During his press conference, Murtha suggested that might be something like a two year calendar.
And, as you can tell, they're not happy.
UPDATE: The expected happens. From Republican Whip Roy Blunt:
"With one of the Democrats' leading war critics now saying the surge in Iraq is working, it's difficult to understand why the majority continues to push an irresponsible withdrawal plan that jeopardizes critical support funding for our troops. It can't be the facts on the ground that are influencing their decision-making: After all, our servicemen and women have made tremendous progress the past six months, with fewer attacks on our troops, greater security in historically insecure areas, and terrorist insurgents on the run.
"The stakes are too high for this Congress to remain idle on this critical funding bill. The Pentagon has continued to make clear the ongoing Democrats' stranglehold over resources will force it to lay off staff, cut operations, and pare back the budgets of other departments. It's time for the majority to stop playing games and deliver a well-deserved gift in time for Christmas to our men and women in uniform: a clean supplemental funding bill."
Can't wait for the reaction to that.
UPDATE II: Methinks Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha may have had a little conversation since Murtha first claimed "the surge is working":
On Friday, however, Murtha's office moved to clarify his seemingly positive take on the surge, this time putting it in the context of renewed criticism of the administration.
"The military surge has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government," Murtha's statement read. "Unfortunately, the sacrifice of our troops has not been met by the Iraqi government and they have failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.
"The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable."
*thunk, thunk*
Sound like hollow rhetoric to you?
I had np problems w/ the questions- just the fact that 1/3 of the questioners had easily identifiable connections to the Dems
Even you can't deny that
CNN on the debate replay edited out the Gay army vet who is on a Hillary campaign committee.
CNN just loses any pretense of objectivity
WHether they were p;anted or not is not the question. Just look at the last debate- they got skewered for doing the same thing for Hillary- planting questioners
YOu might think they would want to try for at least the semblance of integrity- but no- they do the exact same thing in the next debate
And moonbats like you again refuse to acknowledge a blatantly obvious reality
JOHN FUND EMAILS THIS on the CNN debacle:
Last week, CNN's Anderson Cooper quipped in an interview with Townhall.com that “campaign operatives are people too” and that CNN wasn’t worried if political partisans posed questions at the upcoming GOP debate he was moderating. “We don’t investigate the background of people asking questions (by submitting video clips). It’s not our job,” is how he put it.
But now CNN’s logo has egg splattered all over it, as it scrambles to explain how a co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s veterans’ committee was allowed to ask a video question on gays in the military at Wednesday’s debate and was also flown by the network from California to the debate site in Florida so he could repeat his question to the candidates in person. CNN claims it verified retired Brig. Gen. Ketih Kerr’s military status and checked his campaign contribution records, contradicting Mr. Cooper’s blasé attitudes. Still, they somehow missed his obvious connection to the Hillary campaign which any Google search would have turned up. CNN later airbrushed Mr. Kerr’s question out of its rebroadcast of the debate, indicating that it apparently doesn’t think “campaign operatives” are legitimate questioners at the network’s debates.
Now it appears that an amazing number of partisan figures posed many of the 30 questions at the GOP debate all the while pretending to be CNN’s advertised “undecided voters.” Yasmin from Huntsville, Alabama turns out to be a former intern with the Council on American Islamic Relations, a group highly critical of Republicans. Blogger Michelle Malkin has identified other plants, including declared Obama supporter David Cercone, who asked a question about the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans. A questioner who asked a hostile question about the pro-life views of GOP candidates turned out to be a diehard John Edwards supporter (and a slobbering online fan of Mr. Cooper). Yet another “plant” was LeeAnn Anderson, an activist with a union that has endorsed Mr. Edwards.
It seems more “plants” are being uprooted with each passing day. Almost a third of the questioners seem to have some ties to Democratic causes or candidates. Another questioner worked with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s staff. A former intern with Democratic Rep. Jane Harman asked a question about farm subsidies. A questioner who purported to be a Ron Paul supporter turns out to be a Bill Richardson volunteer. David McMillan, a TV writer from Los Angeles, turns out to have several paens to John Edwards on his YouTube page and has attended Barack Obama fundraisers.
Given CNN’s professed goal to have “ordinary Americans” ask questions at their GOP debate, how likely is that it was purely by accident that so many of the videos CNN selected for use were not just from partisans, but people actively hostile to the GOP’s messages and candidates?
(Emphasis added). It makes it kind of hard to trust CNN.
If Iraq becomes a stable democracy, absolutely.
Don't you think the Iraqis would benefit from being out from under SH's thumb?
We benefit from having another democracy in the area- free from Sh's sponsorship of terrorism- another buffer against Iran
Please, he said the original strategy failed and said numerous times the the surge is succeding and that to leave now would be a disaster
Please stop w/ the idiotic meme of "if we're winning why don't we come home now"
The ultimate objective is to do just that for most troops. It's also to leave a stable Iraq. When we've made more progress in that regard, withdrawl will happen
I wish he stayed a drunk
Not a believer in karma I see
The bush's and the people who support them are pond scum and beneath contempt.
typical liberal intolerance
Right, shouting always makes you sound smarter, LOL
Your original statement was stupid.
I never used the word winning- you threw that in. I was responding to another of your delusional friends who thinks that the presence of US troops is causing the unrest even though increased troops have helped quell the violence
"- if we were winning, our troops would be on their way home. Until our troops come home, we are losing."
Yes, the ultimate aim is to bring most of the troops home- that's when we win
Winning means we are making progress in that regard. The surge has worked and you still seem to be in denial of that. If the calm doesn't spread/hold and there is no political progress, then you can say we're losing
Progress is being made- hence we're doing better- "winning"
AS to your new laundry list- those questions have all been answered many times, but then you're not really interested in answers are ya?
Even for you. that's a new level of stupidity
Sanchez and the Democrats
Posted by: McQ
The sudden relationship can be summed up neatly by the old Arab proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Dale has written about it and he and I have discussed it on a podcast. That is the suddenly outspoken retired LTG Ricardo Sanchez blasting the administration about the conduct of the war in Iraq.
Of course what Sanchez never does is take any responsibility for his role in that war. For instance:
Other senior military figures have turned on the White House, but none as senior as Sanchez, whose command of coalition forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 coincided with an explosion of violence, the emergence of a brutal insurgency and a prison-abuse scandal that still haunts the war effort.
I am an interested observer of military leaders having been one at a lower level for quite a few years. I know a leader when I see and hear one. In the case of Ricardo Sanchez, it wasn't at all hard to figure out that he wasn't much of a leader. Every time I saw him or heard him he seemed more like a deer in the headlights than a combat commander of the best military in the world. Contrast him to LTG Ray Odierno who now has that job. Odierno is a no-nonsense combat commander who you immediately sense is in charge of the effort, knows precisely what is going on and how he will either counter or exploit a situation. Sanchez, otoh, always seemed overwhelmed and undecided on what he should do next.
One of the things which happens when a peace-time military goes to war is it shakes out its officer corps. Those who excel in peace-time don't necessary excel during war. Unfortunately we don't always find that out until there is a war. But when you have 3-stars, you're expected to perform. And it appears, given the fact that Sanchez was told to find a new career path after Iraq, that the powers to be found his performance to be the worst performance of a senior commander in Iraq.
Obviously Sanchez doesn't agree. But what is also apparent is Sanchez thinks it is everyone else's fault but his own. In his first public speech he lashed out extensively against the press (although the press found that unworthy of any real coverage). And now he has become a part of Team Democrat in an effort to salvage his reputation by sullying the reputations of others.
So let me hit you with my major gripe with this guy. First some context. This guy was two 4-stars removed from the President of the US in the chain of command. He didn't go through the Pentagon and didn't report through the SecDef or the Chairman of the JCS. He reported to Gen. Casey who reported to the commander of CENTCOM who reports directly to the President. Consequently, any problems he saw with the way the war was being waged had a fairly direct route to the "decider in chief". If it all was as bad as Sanchez says it was, he had a duty to say so. And that should be on the record. He should be able to produce evidence of his dissent. Instead we get a variation of the age-old "I was only following orders" excuse that you might grant a LT but not an LTG.
LTGs make policy, create strategy and run wars. They have input. Major input. And they have pull. They are "movers and shakers" in the military establishment. They are an integral part of any plan, both strategically and tactically. In fact, they are responsible for writing them and executing them. What they aren't are simple soldiers who execute what they're directed to execute.
Quite simply, Sanchez did a lousy job and got what is due a general that does a lousy job. But he is the perfect "McClellan" for today's Copperheads. And that is the role he is now apparently willingly playing. He'll remain a "star" of sorts in the Democratic anti-war pantheon of useful idiots until November of '08, after which, his usefulness at an end, he will be relegated to the obscurity he so richly deserves.
Yep, base an argument based on ONE poll that you searched for that you think justifies your position- typical
Again, if the troops are the source of the instability, why are the US casualties so low and why do they continue to decline?
OF course they would prefer to have the US troops gone.
Again, if the troops are causing the instability, how did increasing them help quell the violence
Please explain that.
Are you really that dense??
Yep, the good ole days when SH was still in power- less sectarian violence because the minority Sunni had all the power and could kill the Shia and Kurds at will.
UFB
Nah, it's not the long standing animosity between Sunni and Shia feuling the civil war.
IT's the fact that US troops are there that is causing Iraqis to kill other Iraqis
LOL, the explanation is very easy- you just have to acknowledge that your premise that the US troops were the cause of the unrest was just a figment of your imagination
It's easy- the new strategy has worked in it's first objective- increased security to decrease sectarian violence
You can't explain it because you're in denial- again.
Your quote again shows that there is increased security- he then goes on to SPECULATE that it won't last
Get back to us when the civil was erupts again. Till then you'll just have to deal that you and your ilk we're completely wrong about the new strategy working
What if the presence of US troops is the root much of the instability you think they should stay and work on?
Still in denial, huh
If your statement were true, please explain how the increased troops during the surge has resulted in the casualty rate plummeting??
Thanks
I know, we should all just listen to the posters on this board, who know Iraq much better than Totten who has spent years over there doing real reporting
I especially liked the part about them using solar powered street lights- isn't that justification enough for the Goreophlies in this board for getting rid of Saddamm?
An Edgy Calm in Fallujah
An Edgy Calm in Fallujah.jpg
FALLUJAH, IRAQ – “You're probably safer here than you are in New York City,” said Marine First Lieutenant Barry Edwards when I arrived in Fallujah. I raised my eyebrows at him skeptically. “How many people got shot at last night in New York City?” he said.
“Probably somebody,” I said.
“Yeah, probably somebody did,” he said. “Somewhere.”
Nobody was shot last night in Fallujah. No American has been shot anywhere in Fallujah since the 3rd Battalion 5th Marine Regiment rotated into the city two months ago. There have been no rocket or mortar attacks since the summer. Not a single of the 3/5 Marines has even been wounded.
“The only shots we've fired since we got here are warning shots,” said Lieutenant J.C. Davis. Another officer didn't agree. “We haven't even fired warning shots,” he said. “It's too dangerous.”
It's dangerous because anti-American sentiment still exists in the city, even though it is mostly passive right now. It isn't entirely passive, however. Someone has been taking pot shots at Americans. A few days ago somebody threw a hand grenade at Marines. Two weeks ago an insurgent was caught by Iraqi Police officers while planting an IED near the main station. He freaked out, accidentally connected the wires, and blew himself up. “That's what he gets,” Private Gauniel said.
Destruction from Humvee Fallujah.jpg
Destruction in Fallujah as seen from inside a Humvee
Even so, almost all patrols in the city are routine and uneventful affairs.
“We've got it quiet all the way up to our boundary line,” said Lieutenant Edwards. “But it's stalling as you get closer to Baghdad. I don't know who is on the other side over there. But the tribe that lives in that area doesn't stop at our imaginary boundary line. The tribe keeps going toward Baghdad. We don't know why the insurgency is still active because we're not operating there.”
You can't get a picture of Iraq as a whole from embedded reporters. It just isn't possible. When I'm with an Army or Marine unit I'm mostly aware of what's right in front of me, somewhat aware of what goes on generally in their area, and no more informed about the rest of the country than anyone else.
In July of 2007 I reported that my corner of Baghdad – in Graya'at, near Adhamiya – was quiet. It was, and I meant that literally. I spent a week there outside the wire with the 82nd Airborne, and I saw no violence whatsoever. I heard a single (very loud) car bomb from three miles away, but there was no other indication that I was in a city at war.
Last week I spent a mere eight hours in the Green Zone waiting for a helicopter flight to Fallujah. I lolled on the grass just outside the Iraqi Parliament building, about one hundred feet from the Red Zone, and heard a series of gunshots on the other side of the wall, followed by police sirens. The Iraqi Police responded to the violence as they should – by driving toward it, not by hiding or running away from it. Sadly, that counts as progress in Baghdad. But the sounds of gun fire continued without let up for another hour and a half. I have no idea who was shooting at who. The Americans at the Green Zone outpost didn't know either. The Peruvians guarding the gates shrugged when I asked if they knew what was happening. “Hay muchas problemas,” one said. “Es Baghdad.”
Baghdad is supposedly only half as violent as it was when I spent my quiet week inside the city, but it is still very dangerous. The trend lines are going in the right direction, but anything can still happen anywhere at any time. It remains a city at war.
Fallujah is different.
None of the Marines I've spoken to are nervous while walking the streets. “Complacency kills” is the new catchphrase in Fallujah, and it's drummed into the heads of the Americans here every day. The Marines may not have yet won the war in this city, but it sure is starting to look like it. The insurgency in Fallujah is over.
Road Sign to Baghdad From Fallujah.jpg
Fallujah is so close to Baghdad it is almost a suburb, though technically it belongs to Anbar Province. Even so, I have heard almost nothing about the Anbar Awakening here. I've always thought of Fallujah as a place unto itself. The locals and the Marines think of it that way, as well. Ramadi is the real city of Anbar. Fallujah is Fallujah.
Whatever else you might say about Fallujah, it's an original. For decades it has been the infamous bad boy city in Iraq.
Author Bing West describes the place this way in No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah. “Ask Iraqis about Fallujah, and they roll their eyes: Fallujah is strange, sullen, wild-eyed, badass, and just plain mean. Fallujans don’t like strangers, which includes anyone not homebred. Wear lipstick or Western-style long hair, sip a beer or listen to an American CD, and you risk the whip or a beating.”
“Saddam rewarded Fallujah with money and recruited his secret police and fedayeen from here,” Lieutenant Edwards said. “Now it is a powerless backwater.” It was also the backbone of the insurgency before it slagged off. Ramadi was the capital of Al Qaeda's so-called “Islamic State in Iraq. But Fallujah was, as the lieutenant put it, Al Qaeda's first club house.
It isn't nearly as dangerous anymore. I would be foolish to say it is safe. You would not want to come here on vacation even if the Iraqi Police would let you inside its walls – and they won't if you don't live here and have the proper ID.
Earlier this year the police set up checkpoints outside the city where they refuse entry to everyone without a Fallujah resident sticker on the windshield of their car. Even residents who have the permit can only drive on designated streets. Every neighborhood has been sectioned off from the others with concrete barriers and checkpoints.
Marine and Minaret Fallujah.jpg
Fallujah is known as the City of Mosques. It is also a city of walls.
*
“Today we're going to a place where we've seen some small arms fire,” Lieutenant Colonel Chris Dowling said before I joined him on a dismounted foot patrol in a neighborhood called Dubat. “Earlier in the week one of the patrols was attacked with a hand grenade and small arms fire,” he said. “And last night there was small arms fire again. A single shot. That makes it even more interesting. Why only a single shot?”
Colonel Dowling Fallujah.jpg
Lieutenant Colonel Chris Dowling
“Was it a sniper round?” I said.
“I don't know,” he said. “This was last night at 1:30. The company commander went through this morning and I want to follow up so they can see the situation has my concern. We'll talk to people. In Iraq everybody knows everybody. So they'll figure that one out real quick.”
He also wanted to check out the market.
“Iraqis don't normally drink coffee,” he said. “But we're told there's a guy now selling coffee. So we're going to find out why he's selling coffee and who is drinking the coffee.”
Lots of Arabs drink coffee, but he's right that Iraqis do not. They have a tea culture here. Are there foreigners here buying the coffee? Fallujah is a closed city. They aren't selling it to tourists from Morocco or Lebanon.
The colonel goes out on patrol with his men every week. He also goes to city council meetings regularly.
“He no longer has a place at the table,” Lieutenant J.C. Davis said. “He is only there as an advisor if they need him.”
“What was his role before?” I said.
“Basically, mayor,” he said.
The colonel said he wanted to minimize the presence of Marines.
“I'd like to see the convoys stop going through Fallujah,” he said. “I'd rather go around Fallujah. I want to hand the city back over.”
The former insurgency in the city had many causes, not the least of which was the perception that Americans were here to be an oppressor. Now that security has been restored, the Marines are pulling back hard.
“When you go on night patrols you'll see people playing dominoes in the middle of the night,” Colonel Dowling said. “I'm not scooting 'em because it's 23:00 and they're supposed to be inside their doors. I'm out saying Hey, have some tea. Are you sleeping outside tonight? Please be safe. Those are the things a typical neighborhood cop would say. And that's what I want to show them. I'm not shaking them down. I'm not kicking in doors. I'm not demanding information. I'm not taking over their house to use for a sniper. I'll knock politely, and if they don't want me in the house, we don't go in the house.”
“Do you get attitude from people sometimes when you do that?” I said.
“I don't get attitude for that,” he said. “But sometimes I'll see someone on the street who gives me the stink eye. And I'll stop that person on the street. I'll say, hey, why are you upset? I'll never attack him for giving me a dirty look. I'll say You seem upset, what's the matter? He'll usually say I'm not upset. Or sometimes he'll say I just woke up.” He laughed. “Then I'll spend five or ten minutes with the guy and try to change his perception of a U.S. Marine and remind him what it was like a year ago, five months ago.”
We walked toward our waiting convoy of Humvees. Most patrols in the city are conducted out of small security stations in the various neighborhoods, but the colonel works at Camp Baharia outside the city. We would first have to drive in.
“We need to get you some gloves,” he said as we loaded up our gear. “In case there is an explosion.” At Camp Fallujah I saw gruesome photographs of the hands of Marines who survived explosions and who didn't wear gloves. The colonel did not need to convince me.
No one suggested I wear gloves when I embedded with Army units. Nor had it ever occurred to me.
The drive into Fallujah from Camp Baharia took us through a dreary landscape of what the Marines and soldiers call “moon dust,” the finely grained grit that covers and blows all over everything in Western Iraq. You can't touch anything or even go outside in this country without getting it all over you.
Desert Outside Fallujah.jpg
Before crossing into Fallujah we passed the checkpoint that keeps non-resident vehicles out. Just past the checkpoint was a sign written in Arabic: Welcome to Fallujah. A Terrorist-Free City.
Brand new solar-powered street lights line the main roads. Now that insurgents no longer sabotage the electrical grid, Fallujah gets around twelve hours of electricity a day on average. (It used to be a lot less.) Getting street lights permanently off the electrical grid not only frees up power for televisions and air conditioners, it prevents the city from going dark even when the power is out. The Marines plan to have every street lit up with solar power in two years. Sunlight in this country is a terrible punisher for almost half the year, but it makes solar power almost a no-brainer, especially since the electrical system is already broken.
Web of Wires Fallujah.jpg
Iraq's Third World electrical system is partly disabled by Iraqi incompetence. When a transformer blows, everyone manually moves their wires to another transformer, which then in turn blows, and so on in a domino effect that never ends.
Just inside this overwhelmingly Sunni city is the Blue Mosque, which is Shia.
Blue Mosque Fallujah.jpg
The mosque was aligned with Moqtada al Sadr's radical Mahdi Army militia until the Marines said it would be kept off the aid list if the imam didn't drop his support for jihad. So the mosque came over the coalition side.
We dismounted from our Humvees and walked along the main street in the market area. Colonel Dowling struck up conversations with random Iraqis as we went. Most of the talk was just casual chit chat, but he did mention the hand grenade that was thrown at Marines. He wanted to make sure the locals knew they had his attention.
Market Street Fallujah.jpg
If anyone knew who threw it, they didn't say anything. The Iraqis did, however, voice their complaints. Many groused about the government in Baghdad. Fallujah was an important city when Saddam Hussein was in power. It's not anymore. Ramadi is the capital of this province, in fact now as well as in name, but even that city is neglected by the central government.
One Iraqi wildly gesticulated while denouncing the “crazy countries,” Syria and Iran, for fomenting violence in his. The colonel listened with sympathy.
He cuts an intimidating personality on base when interacting with Marines, as colonels often do. With Iraqis, though, he seemed more like a jovial grandpa and a bit of a do-gooder type. I don't think it was for show. He's a professional, and he adjusts his behavior as needed.
Goofy Teenager Fallujah.jpg
Our interpreter's name was Al. He is originally from Cairo, but he lives now in Las Vegas and is an American citizen. Before he moved to Las Vegas he lived in Baghdad. He prides himself on his knowledge of Iraqi Arabic and his ability to speak it mostly without an accent and blend in as an Iraqi himself.
Later an old Iraqi man dressed in a sharp Western suit figured out where he was from. “You are Egyptian,” he said.
Man in Suit Fallujah.jpg
This man busted our interpreter Al
“You're busted, Al,” I said and laughed.
Fallujah looks filthy to my eyes, but the city is apparently a lot cleaner than it recently was. The Marines hire local day laborers to clean up the dump sites around town. Ramadi looked worse in August than Fallujah does now, but both are less trash-strewn than they were. There was no garbage collection during the insurgency. Security isn't everything in Iraq, but none of these cities can function properly without it.
Humvees and Telephone Poles Fallujah.jpg
New orange dumpsters have been set up every couple of blocks on the streets. The trash is picked up once a week by a Fallujah garbage collection company. Iraqis aren't used to dumpsters, and they have to be told what they're for. Some willingly dispose of their trash inside. Others, out of sheer habit and carelessness, still hurl their refuse onto sidewalks and into gutters and empty lots.
There is no getting around it: this place is ugly, and not only because of the garbage. The streets are dusty as well as filthy. There aren't many trees. The architecture is brutal. Almost every house crouches behind a wall. The Marines have blocked off a huge number of streets with barbed wire and Jersey barriers. There are no nice restaurants and only a handful of the most basic stores. I've only seen one tea shop so far, and there is only one bar in the entire city, somewhere out there next to an empty building with no sign telling citizens what is inside. 99 percent of the people you see outside are men. Fallujah looks like a stern Islamic garrison city.
The Marines know it, too. They feel bad about their own contribution to its hideousness, so they paid local artists a good bit of money to paint murals on the barriers and the walls.
Doves and Skyline Mural Fallujah.jpg
Statue Mural Fallujah.jpg
The city may be hyperconservative, but that does not mean it is radical. At least it's not anymore. Several children ran up to me and, after asking for candy and pictures, said “There are no terrorists in Fallujah.”
*
It isn't quite true that there are no terrorists in Fallujah. As the colonel said, somebody threw a hand grenade at Marines just a few days before. Technically that was an act of guerrilla war rather than terrorism. But the line between guerrillas and terrorists is a thin one in Iraq. Often times the very same individuals who detonate IEDs beneath Humvees also explode car bombs in civilian markets.
Two Girls on Wall Fallujah.jpg
Just a few days ago, eleven people were rounded up and detained. I don't know if they were foreigners or Iraqis, and I don't know why they were arrested. That information is classified. But it happened. Total security is impossible in any country, and especially in a place like Iraq. In Fallujah, though, it is about as good as it can possibly be while the insurgency still grinds on elsewhere.
“My number one concern remains security,” Colonel Dowling told me. “My number two concern is education. I want the schools to be filled with kids. I want the schoolhouse teaching good information.”
“Is anybody monitoring the content of their education?” I said.
“No,” he said.
This surprised me. Schools in some parts of the Middle East are ideological indoctrination factories. I don't know if this has been a problem in Fallujah or not, but someone should know.
Two Boys Fallujah.jpg
“I ask questions about ABCs,” the colonel continued. “I'll go out there and see kids run up to me and they'll just start reciting the ABCs. Or they'll whip out their English books and they'll start reading their English books to me.” I saw the same thing in Ramadi in August. “If I can get these folks to start speaking English, they really will be the bright future for Iraq.”
“When I asked about the curriculum,” I said, “I meant the politics.”
“I don't think they're doing that anymore,” he said.
“You know what I mean?” I said.
“Yeah,” he said. “They're not...the imams understand what we're trying to do right now.”
He sounded confident, but he also said no one was checking. The Marines do, however, have fluent Arabic speakers listen to what gets said in the mosques.
Man and Girl Fallujah.jpg
“I make sure that my chaplain is out talking to the imams,” he continued. “He goes out once a week and sits and talks to them about religion, values, orphanges, things like that. They see a different perspective from him than they do from the typical Marine. They see that we're very quick to help the poor, and that we'll readily give the shirt off our backs, particularly the Marines. And we back it up. I go to a school once a week just to see what's going on, and I've never heard any anti-coalition messages or anything like that. My Marines have never heard anything bad coming from the loudspeakers of the mosques. They either say coaltition forces are helpful, or a proverb, a direction on how to lead your life, or Thank God for the Iraqi Police. I prefer to hear a proverb and just erase or eliminate discussing anything about coalition forces, either good or bad.”
Aid for mosques is dependent on imams pitching jihad over the side, but the Marines don't force a point of view on the Iraqis. Still, the colonel's preference for no pro-coalition messages was counter-intuitive.
“Why would you not want the imams saying something good?” I said.
“They can do it inside the mosque,” he said, “but I don't need them to announce it. I would rather have normalcy added back to their lives, so they can go back to the way they were 20 years ago or 40 years ago. That's what I'd like to see.”
The U.S. is winning in Iraq right now, but losing in Afghanistan. (American conventional wisdom is terribly out of date in both countries.) Lots of the Marines I've spoken to here want to wrap up their mission and move on to the hotter, more pressing, battlefield. If all goes as well as they hope, the build-up in troops this year means fewer will be needed next year.
“The biggest thing we've got going for us is the surge,” said Lieutenant Edwards. “You've probably read about it or heard about it on television.”
Girl with Teletubbies Shirt Fallujah.jpg
“Yeah,” I said and laughed. I witnessed and covered the surge myself in July and August.
“Has it helped us?” he said. “Extremely. What we can do is we can go in, knock out the enemy forces, and still leave forces there to remain and hold security down. We can then take our own forces, develop the Iraqi forces so that they can hold their own spot, then we can move to another one.”
The Marines have an extra 1,000 troops in the Fallujah area this year, but they aren't in the city. There are far fewer Marines here now than there were.
“We went from having 3,000 Marines in the city last year to down around 300 now,” the lieutenant said. “Maybe 250.”
“So you didn't surge Marines into the city,” I said.
“No,” he said. “We surged Marines around Fallujah. We either capture and kill AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], or they move out. If we don't kill or capture them, they move somewhere else. They avoid Fallujah now like it's the plague.”
“Even though there are only a tenth as many Marines?” I said. “Are they afraid of the Iraqis?”
“They're afraid of the Iraqis,” he said. “That's what's holding this place down. It's the citizens and the Iraqi forces. We're here as an overwatch in case something happens, but they're holding their own. They're holding their own security in the sense that if you fail, you fail your family and you fail your tribe. That's humiliating for them, and it is not going to happen.”
*
As in Baghdad and Ramadi, children mobbed me everywhere I went on the street. They ran up to the Marines and asked for “chocolate,” which to them means any kind of candy at all. They also asked me for chocolate, but they also wanted me take pictures. “Mister! Mister! Sura!
Sura!” (sura means picture, I guess). Some wanted money.
Children V Sign Fallujah.jpg
Kids with Red and Blue Shirts Fallujah.jpg
Thumb Wrestling the Colonel and Terp Al Fallujah.jpg
Lieutenant Colonel Chris Dowling beats an Iraqi boy in a thumb wrestling contest while our interpreter Al looks on.
Some Marines like to say “You give me money!” when the kids are particularly aggressive. The kids usually laugh and back off, understanding the point and not taking offense. I tried it myself and one kid actually pulled some cash out of his pocket and handed it over. “No, no, I was just joking,” I said. Occasionally an Iraqi adult took pity on my and shooed the kids away so I could photograph something else.
Three Story Building Fallujah.jpg
Two nicely dressed men saw Colonel Dowling and bolted. “Hey!” he said in a friendly tone of voice. They froze and approached us warily, pretending to be friendly. The colonel chatted them up with some small talk, apparently to show them that the Marines are not (necessarily) out to get them. After a few minutes the colonel let them go with an amiable “see you later.” The two men moved away from us as quickly as they could without actually running.
“Public opinion is split about 70-30,” Lieutenant Davis said. “About 70 percent are with us to an extent, though they do want us to leave eventually. 30 percent want us to leave now, but they oppose us passively. I recently met a guy at the market who speaks pretty good English, and he made it very clear he wants us out of his country for good, and he wants us out now.”
Derelict Corner Fallujah.jpg
As we walked back toward the Humvees, a strung-out drug addict walked up behind Colonel Dowling and wildly waved a syringe in his hand. One of the Marines disarmed him, crouched, and bent the needle backwards on the sidewalk. He sealed it up in a plastic bag and brought it back to Camp Baharia for analysis.
“So what did you think?” the colonel said as we headed back to the base.
“It reminds me a bit of Ramadi,” I said.
“Ramadi is better than here,” he said.
Postscript: Please support independent journalism. Traveling to and working in Iraq is expensive. I can’t publish dispatches on this Web site for free without substantial reader donations, so I'll appreciate it if you pitch in what you can. Blog Patron allows you to make recurring monthly payments, and even small donations will be extraordinarily helpful so I can continue this project.
“Blog
If you prefer to use Pay Pal, that is still an option.
If you would like to donate for travel and equipment expenses and you don't want to send money over the Internet, please consider sending a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Welllll, if that money goes towards services, doesnt the interest on the national debt- a lot of it in foreign hands still have to be paid??
Your really splitting hairs as all the obligations ( not just eh ones the moonbats agree with ) have to be taken care of, no?
Iraq: Beyond the Drop in Violence
11-26-2007, 10:47 AM • by ON Point
By Amir Taheri
Today’s Feature is slightly different. Amir Taheri, an internationally known writer on middle-eastern affairs, wrote the following article which gives a clear and concise overview of the situation in Iraq today. It’s an interesting article (I think!) and I trust you’ll find it equally worthy of note.
New York Post, 11/26/07
"A TORRENT OF GOOD NEWS": So The New York Times described the reports of a significant fall in violence in Iraq. But reducing all Iraqi news to measures of violence can hamper understanding of a complex situation.
Those who opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 prefer to focus on violence, for it has seemed to confirm their claim that the war was wrong. They've downplayed all good news from post-Saddam Iraq - the end of an evil regime that had oppressed the Iraqi people for 35 years; the return home of a million-plus Iraqi refugees in the first year after liberation; the fact that the Iraqis got together to write a new constitution and hold referendums and free elections - for the first time in their history - and moved to form coalition governments answerable to the parliament.
The drop in violence is certainly a good thing. But other Iraq news, both good and bad, needs to be taken into account.
On the good side:
*More than 70 percent of the cells created by al Qaeda in Iraq have been dismantled, with vast amounts of money and arms seized from terrorists and insurgents. The so-called Islamic State in Iraq, set up by al Qaeda in parts of four provinces, has collapsed.
*Iraqis who'd sought temporary refuge in neighboring countries are returning home in large numbers - 1,000 a day returning from Syria alone.
*Thanks to mediation by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Shiite coalition, the three groups that had withdrawn from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government are expected to return to the fold.
*The British forces' handover of Basra to Iraqi authorities was completed without a hitch; Iraq's second largest city is rapidly returning to normal.
*Iraq's national currency, the dinar, is trading at its highest level since 1990 against the Iranian rial, the Kuwaiti dinar and the US dollar.
*Iraqi oil production is at its highest since 2002. Oil Minister Hussein Shahrestani recently notified OPEC that Iraq intends to produce its full quota next year.
*There's a rush of applications to set up small and medium businesses. In Baghdad alone, the figure for October was 400, compared to 80 last August.
*The fourth American university in the Arab world, and the first in Iraq, has started work in Suleymanieh, close to the Iranian border.
And on the bad:
*All programs for training the new Iraqi army and police are behind schedule. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) hasn't met even a third of its quota. Only one Iraqi officer is training at Sandhurst, the famed British military academy. (Former Prime Minister Tony Blair had promised 22 places.)
*A new leadership elite has emerged locally, but isn't represented in central decision-making. In parts of the country, the officials in place are isolated, if not actually disliked, while unofficial leaders organize and manage some services that government should provide.
*The parties dominating the parliament have failed to set a date for local elections - without which full return to normal is unlikely. The former exiles who now dominate know they'd lose power in any elections to new groups led by homegrown figures.
*Prime Minister al-Maliki continues to prevaricate over draft legislation on oil exploration, production, export and revenue-sharing.
*Draft bills on limiting the effects of de-Baathification and facilitating the inclusion of thousands of former officers and NCOs in the new army remain back-burnered. This gives the impression that the governing coalition, strengthened by the drop in violence, is reluctant to take measures that might loosen its hold on power.
*As a result of pressure by the ruling elite, the crackdown on corruption and embezzlement, launched earlier this year, has ground to a halt. Public perception of widespread corruption - coupled with the government's inability to provide regular services - undermines the legitimacy of the authorities.
*The government has taken few steps to help those driven out of their homes to return to their original places of abode. Most returnees are persuaded to settle in other areas. The net effect is to "ratify" the ethnic cleansing imposed by militants in the heyday of the "war of the sectarians."
*With pressure from al Qaeda and the insurgency easing, the ruling elites (even the Kurds, who'd hitherto remained united) have become involved in bitter power feuds. The United States is doing little to persuade the elites to spend their energies on more productive endeavors.
*The command-economy mindset, discredited after liberation, is making a comeback. The new budget presented to the parliament is based on the principle of a rentier economy: The state, thanks to its control of oil revenues, affects all major decisions. The idea of a modern capitalist economy, much in vogue in 2003-'04, appears to have been shelved, at least for now.
*The authorities appear to be ignoring cultural fascists who are trying to impose their vision of an "Islamic society" through terror. This is especially the case in the predominantly Shiite provinces of the south, where the so-called campaign of "re-Islamicization" is openly funded by Iran. Friends of the new Iraq must impress on its leaders that these cultural fascists could, in time, prove as deadly as al Qaeda terrorists.
[IRAQ today is a hundred times better than what it would have been under Saddam in any imaginable circumstances. Statistics of violence don't begin to measure the efforts of a whole nation to re-emerge from the darkest night in its history. And in that sense, the news from Iraq since April 2003 has always been more good than bad.
What is new is that now more Americans appear willing to acknowledge this - good news in itself. As long as the United States remains resolute in its support for the new Iraq, there will be more good news than bad from what is at present the main battlefield in the War on Terror.
http://uscavonpoint.com/articles2/Article.aspx?id=10028&utm_source=onpoint+nov2007D&utm_medium=bulkemail&utm_term=feature&utm_campaign=onpoint+nov2007D&urlid=onpoint_feature
And why would they want to bankrupt the US?
THanks
McCain pounds Clinton on Iraq
By: John Bresnahan
November 25, 2007 05:37 PM EST
Iraq and electability once again dominated the Sunday talk shows as the race for the White House kicked into high gear, less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), fresh off his latest visit to Iraq, told This Week’s George Stephanopoulos that “significant progress” is being made in reducing sectarian violence thanks to President Bush’s decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. combat troops to the war zone.
McCain, who is trying to ride the improved security situation in Iraq to an improved standing in the polls, took shots at several Democratic candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), for their suggestion that the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from Iraq soon.
“Is that the same Sen. Clinton that said she had to suspend disbelief in order to acknowledge to that the strategy of the surge was succeeding?” McCain said in reference to Clinton’s statement that the United States should stop trying to intervene in a “civil war” in Iraq. “Clearly, it’s succeeding. You would have to suspend disbelief to believe that it’s not.”
McCain later said Clinton’s support for a phased withdrawal from Iraq “would have been a catastrophe for the United States of America.”
“Look, now the same people who were saying seven or eight months were saying you can’t succeed militarily, we’ve succeeded military. Sen. Edwards used to call it the ‘McCain strategy.’ He doesn’t call it that anymore,” McCain claimed. “Their record is wrong on this. My record is right.”
" they can't get off The Decider's boat fast enough!"
Well, since Bush won't be running in 2008, what will the dems do?
They won't have Bush hate as a staple of their platform.
Their Iraq as quagmire meme isn't looking so good either.
The Dems squeeked in to the barest of majorities and since then theri polling has been historically bad
You see that as the foundation for a landslide??
LOL
Bob Schrum???
LOL please list his accomplishments.
He has a long history as a loser
The Gangs of Iraq Are Killing Each Other Off
November 23, 2007: The Gangs of Iraq are killing each other off. What it has come down to is the gangs, militias and organizations that have been making a living planting roadside bombs and carrying out contract hits on American and Iraqi troops for the last three years, are being defeated by tribal and community groups fed up with the constant violence. The terrorist activity of the last three years was paid for by kidnapping, extortion, black market gasoline and so on, and wealthy Sunni Arabs eager to put the Baath party back into power. Religious leaders, who often took fees for allowing their mosques to be used as armories and safe houses, also preached against the heretical Shia, who now ruled the country. Now the pro-peace Sunni Arab clergy have displaced the pro-violence imams, and established their own "Council of Religious Scholars" to prove it.
Generally unnoticed over the last two years was a growing revolt within the Sunni Arab community. The Sunni Arab nationalists, the guys who supported Saddam and what he represented, did not have the backing of all Sunni Arabs. Neither did Saddam. And after Saddam fell, the fighting between Sunni Arabs began. Many Sunni Arabs greeted the Americans, and the prospect of democracy, with enthusiasm. These Sunni Arabs found themselves threatened by their fellow Sunnis, and distrusted by the majority Kurds and Shia. But the anti-Saddam Sunni Arabs have grown in number over the last three years, aided in part by the departure (for Syria, Jordan or internal exile) of nearly half the Sunni Arab community.
The tipping point occurred this year, as the anti-terrorist Sunni Arabs became numerous enough to defeat the terrorist groups. The fighting continues, and serious violence will probably not end until sometime next year. Many of the terrorist groups have roots in the community, or simply will not flee or quit. They will fight to the death. But many others are giving up, or sticking to less murderous criminal activities. There's still money to be made in kidnapping, extortion and stealing. The Iraqi economy has continued to boom since 2003, so there's a lot more to steal.
All these changes have been a boon for foreign journalists. It's safe enough now for these reporters to get out among the Iraqi people. There's still plenty of violence and tragedy to report, and now it can be done personally, rather than through Iraqi stringers.
American troops are noting a dramatic reduction in violence against them. Earlier this year, the average American brigade encountered about half a dozen IEDs (roadside bombs) a day, and nearly as many incidents of gunfire directed at their patrols. That violence has gone down by more than half. Many neighborhoods are safe enough to stop and walk around in, and even do a little shopping. Getting local souvenirs for the folks back home has become popular. More Iraqis, especially the kids, come out to practice their English. Lots of Iraqis are learning English. Lots of Iraqis want to get out of Iraq and go to America. Lots of Iraqis already in America, and they tell the folks back in the old country that there have been no Islamic terrorist bombs going off in America since September 11, 2001. It's safe in America, and it's getting safer in Iraq.
New boss turns the tables on Al Qaeda
Ex-Sunni insurgent becomes U.S. ally
By Liz Sly, Tribune foreign correspondent; Nadeem Majeed contributed to this report
November 22, 2007
The once-dreaded Al Qaeda in Iraq stronghold of Amariyah has a new boss, and he's not shy about telling the story of the shootout that turned him into a local legend and helped change the tenor of the Iraq war.
Earlier this year, Abul Abed, a disgruntled Sunni insurgent leader, began secret talks with the Americans about ending Al Qaeda's reign of terror in this run-down, formerly middle-class Baghdad neighborhood, renowned as one of the city's most dangerous. He had been gathering intelligence on the group for months.
One day in late May, he said, he decided it was time to act.
Related links
*
Bombs Kill 26 in Baghdad, Northern Iraq
He hailed the car carrying the feared leader of Al Qaeda in the neighborhood, a man known as the White Lion, on one of Amariyah's main streets. "We want you to stop destroying our neighborhood," he told the man.
"Do you know who you are talking to?" said the White Lion, getting out of his car. "I am Al Qaeda. I will destroy even your own houses!"
He pulled out his pistol and shot at Abul Abed. The gun jammed. He reloaded and fired again. Again, the gun jammed.
By this time, Abul Abed said, he had pulled his own gun. He fired once, killing the White Lion.
"I walked over to him, stepped on his hand and took his gun," Abul Abed, which is a nom de guerre, said at his new, pink-painted headquarters in a renovated school in Amariyah, as an American Army captain seated in the corner nodded his head in affirmation of the account. "And then the fight started."
It was the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda in Amariyah. The next day, a firefight erupted. Al Qaeda fighters closed in on Abul Abed. Most of the 150 men who had joined him fled. Holed up in a mosque with fewer than a dozen supporters, Abul Abed thought the end was near.
"The blue carpet was soaked red with blood," he recalled. Then the imam of the mosque called in American help.
A friendship was born.
Now Abul Abed, a swaggering former major in the Iraqi army and reputedly a top leader in the influential Islamic Army insurgent group, reigns supreme in Amariyah -- with considerable help from the U.S. military.
Still wearing the White Lion's pistol tucked into his belt, he commands his own 600-member paramilitary force, called the Knights of Mesopotamia. He receives $460,000 a month from the U.S. military to pay, arm and equip them. They wear crisp olive green uniforms with smart red and yellow badges bearing the Knights' horse-head logo. They are well-armed, and some have flak jackets.
But they don't really need them. Since the Knights drove Al Qaeda out of Amariyah after a two-month battle, the neighborhood has become largely safe.
"You can move freely in Amariyah at any time of the day or night," Abul Abed said. "You can even see women without head scarves, wearing tight jeans!"
An 'Awakening' in Iraq
Men like Abul Abed have helped change the face of the war. Following in the footsteps of the late Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the tribal leader who led the Sunni revolt that drove Al Qaeda from the base of its operations in Iraq's Anbar province, more than 70,000 people, most of them Sunnis, in 148 groups have joined in the so-called Awakening, or Sahwa, movement, according to the U.S. military, turning against Al Qaeda and turning to the Americans for help.
Since Abul Abed's fight in Amariyah, some of the most feared Baghdad neighborhoods, including Abu Ghraib, Fadhil, Ghazaliyah, Dora and Adhamiyah, have followed suit, forming their own brigades of Knights, welcoming the U.S. military and receiving U.S. money.
Abul Abed is coy about his insurgent connections. He gave his real name as Saad Erebi Ghaffouri al-Obaidi, though he is known across Baghdad as Abul Abed. U.S. officials, Amariyah residents and Sunni leaders say he was a prominent commander in the Islamic Army. He described himself as a former Iraqi army major who "went into business" after the regime fell. He won't say what business.
But he acknowledged that many of his men once fought Americans and now work closely with them.
"They recognize that they made a big mistake," he said. "They realize that they were on the wrong path and that they wasted many chances with what they did."
The implications of creating this network of trained, armed paramilitaries loyal not to the government but to an assortment of local strongmen have yet to be played out. U.S. officials said they are relieved that the revolution within the Sunni community has helped to sharply reduce the number of attacks. According to the military, attacks in Iraq fell 55 percent between March and October.
The U.S. wants to absorb the Sunnis who have joined the Awakening movement into the Iraqi security forces, but so far the Shiite-led government has hesitated, concerned that they will one day turn against the government. If the government continues to frustrate the Sunnis, U.S. officials are concerned their new allies could go back to the insurgency.
"That's the big intangible that makes me nervous," said Col. Martin Stanton, who oversees the reconciliation and engagement effort. If there is no progress on getting the paramilitaries regular jobs with the security forces and delivering services to Sunni areas, Sunni frustrations will continue to mount, he said.
"The question is, what's the break point? ... How long before people start getting sick of it and start checking out?" he said.
'Americans are our protectors'
Abul Abed said the Sunni revolution has gone too far for that.
"Americans are our protectors and saviors," he said.
The real enemy of Iraq, he says, now is Iran. He pulled out his mobile phone to show pictures he has saved of the bodies of his four brothers, who were kidnapped and murdered in 2005 by what he suspects was a Shiite death squad with ties to Iran. One of them had a nail driven into his head. Another was missing a hand.
"Even animals wouldn't do that," he said, his face darkening. "Iran is so deeply infiltrated in Iraq, the problem here still cannot be solved. Iran wants to demolish us. If the Americans leave, then you can count Iraq as a second Tehran."
----------
lsly@tribune.com
Inside Intel / Not a reactor - something far more vicious
By Yossi Melman
Tags: Israel Air Force, IAEA
Ten weeks have passed since the Israel Air Force attacked in Syria, and there is still no reliable information about the precise target that was destroyed, or about the importance and necessity of the attack. Since Israel keeps maintaining its veil of secrecy, Everything that is known comes from leaks by anonymous U.S. administration officials to several of the major American media outlets. What is almost certain, judging from the leaks, are the following facts: A nuclear site built by the Syrians was attacked, and there was some connection to know-how and technology transferred from North Korea. The prevailing assumption is that it was a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor that was in stages of construction, that would have enabled Syria to produce plutonium to manufacture a nuclear bomb.
This assumption relies first and foremost on an analysis by scholar David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington (ISIS). Albright was part of the United Nations supervisory unit in Iraq that searched for weapons of mass destruction. In recent years, he and his institute have gained a reputation as experts in nuclear proliferation. He is considered close to the U.S. intelligence communit and to have connections with the Israeli defense establishment.
A month ago Albright, as well as The Washington Post and The New York Times, published satellite photos of the site attacked in Syria. The photos were taken on August 10, 2007 and reveal a structure built adjacent to a hilly slope, not far from the Euphrates River. Incidentally, it would be interesting to learn who knew already then, about a month before the attack to take photographs of the Syrian structure from the satellite company DigitalGlobe.
Advertisement
A reactor without a dome
Albright compared the structure in Syria to satellite images of a structure located at the Yongbyon nuclear site in North Korea. The dimensions of the two structures are similar - about 48 by 32 meters and lacking a dome. The structure in North Korea is a nuclear research reactor built on the basis of a 1980 Chinese archetype. As opposed to the Western countries, in the Communist bloc countries, reactors commonly have a flat roof and lack a dome. For example, the reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine, where the radioactive leakage disaster occurred in 1985, had no dome.
The official production capacity of the reaction in Yongbyon, which was fueled with enriched uranium, is 5 megawatts, but the experts estimate that in fact its capacity had been extended. Over the years, particularly during the period when North Korea was not under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it produced plutonium from the nuclear fuel rods. U.S. intelligence estimates that even after the nuclear test conducted about a year ago (a test which failed), North Korea still has reserves of about 40 kilograms of plutonium, which is sufficient to produce 10 atom bombs. This plutonium is not under supervision, and North Korea could have concealed it in its laboratories or sold it to another country - Syria, for example.
Albright's assessments, which hold that what was attacked in Syria was a nuclear reactor, have become almost an authoritative voice. They have been unreservedly adopted all over the world, Israeli media included.
But Prof. Uzi Even of Tel Aviv University is challenging them here for the first time. On the basis of an analysis of the same satellite photos, which have been published in the media and on Web sites and are accessible to everyone, he believes that the structure that was attacked and destroyed was not a nuclear reactor. Even, a former Meretz MK, is a chemist who until 1968 worked at the nuclear reactor in Dimona (KAMAG - Hebrew for the Nuclear Research Center). For years he has been keeping track of, and writing about, Israel's nuclear policy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide.
Even's questions relate to several substantive issues. First, in the reactor in Yongbyon, one can clearly see a chimney, which is necessary for the emission of the radioactive gases (incidentally, based on the emission of the gases experts can determine the capacity of the reactor). In the satellite photos of the structure in Syria there is no chimney. It could be claimed that the Syrians may not have had time to build it. This is a reasonable answer, but it is overshadowed by the fact that there is evidence that the structure was under construction already four years ago. There are satellite photos of the site from 2003. In these photos one can clearly see in one of the building walls openings, which disappeared in the 2007 photos. "We can assume that construction began even before 2003," says Even. "In all those years, five years or even more, a chimney had still not been built? Very strange."
No less strange in his opinion is the fact that the "reactor" did not have cooling towers. The pumping station seen in the photos, 5 kilometers from the site, cannot, according to him, be a substitute for such towers. "A structure without cooling towers cannot be a reactor," he says, pointing to the satellite photo from Yongbyon, in which one can clearly see the cooling tower, with steam rising from it.
Another structure essential for a reactor is missing from the Syrian photos: a plutonium separation facility. As mentioned, the reactor is fueled by enriched uranium of fuel rods, which undergo a process of radiation. In order to turn them into plutonium, they have to be processed chemically in a plutonium separation facility.
And there is an additional question. If this was, in fact, a nuclear reactor, whose construction was not completed, clearly it would have taken the Syrians several years until they were able to operate it and produce plutonium. Why was Israel in a rush to attack a reactor that was under construction, years before it would have become operational? Was it willing to risk an all-out war with Syria because of a reactor in stages of construction? (A war Israel was afraid would erupt last summer, even without any connection to the nuclear issue.) This is very unlikely.
To give an example, the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981 was carried out very shortly before it would have become operational. From this, we may conclude that a nuclear reactor under construction, which is far from endangering Israel, should not have been a worthy target for attack.
Even more dangerous
All these explanations and others lead Even to believe that what was destroyed was not a nuclear reactor. If this is the case, what was the purpose of the structure?
"In my estimation this was something very nasty and vicious, and even more dangerous than a reactor," says Even. "I have no information, only an assessment, but I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium, namely a factory for assembling the bomb."
In other words, Syria already had several kilograms of plutonium, and it was involved in building a bomb factory (the assembling of one bomb requires about four kilograms of fissionable material).
Processing the plutonium and assembling the bomb require utmost caution, because plutonium is one of the most toxic and radioactive materials. One microgram can kill one person, and a gram is capable of killing a million people. Handling it requires special lathes, but because of its lethal nature nobody is allowed to come into direct contact with plutonium or with the lathes. That is why there is a need to build labs containing dozens of glove boxes, which isolate and separate the worker from the material and the equipment.
What reinforces Even's suspicion that the structure attacked in Syria was in fact a bomb assembly plant is the fact that the satellite photos taken after the bombing clearly show that the Syrians made an effort to bury the entire site under piles of earth. "They did so because of the lethal nature of the material that was in the structure, and that can be plutonium," he said. That may also be the reason they refused to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the site and take samples of the earth, which would give away their secret.
Another piece of information crucial for reinforcing Even's assumption is the scant attention paid in the Israeli media to an op-ed published last month in The Wall Street Journal by two members of the U.S. Congress, Peter Hoekstra and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Hoekstra is the senior Republican member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Ros-Lehtinen is the senior Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. They expressed their anger at the fact that the Bush administration "has thrown an unprecedented veil of secrecy around the Israeli airstrike. It has briefed only a handful of very senior members of Congress, leaving the vast majority of foreign relations and intelligence committee members in the dark. We are among the very few who were briefed, but we have been sworn to secrecy on this matter."
They write in the article that Syria received "nuclear expertise or material" from North Korea, and in the same breath they mention Iran, without explaining why. They claim that the administration leaks are intentionally vague: to justify the Israeli attack but also to blur North Korea's part in the affair.
The two Congressmen have a clear agenda: They want the administration to remove the cloak of secrecy and tell the members of Congress and the public the truth about what happened, in the belief that such information will lead the majority in Congress to understand that the negotiations with North Korea should be stopped.
North Korea's consent to shut down the Yongbyon reactor and to allow renewed international monitoring of it (although it is not clear what will happen to the fissionable material in its possession - enriched plutonium and uranium), was achieved after exhausting contacts that lasted for about five years, with China, Russia, the U.S., Japan and South Korea. In exchange, North Korea will receive economic assistance and fuel. Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen are apparently aware that revealing the truth about North Korea's role will lead to pressure on the U.S. administration to discontinue the contacts with the regime in Pyongyang. But for exactly the same reason, the administration is not interested in doing so, particularly not at this sensitive time when it is trying to prevent Iran's nuclear program.
And what about Israel? Wasn't it in Israel's interest to publicize what was bombed in Syria? Of course it was. Even more so if this was a plant for assembling a nuclear bomb based on information, technology and fissionable material that Syria re ceived from North Korea, perhaps with the knowledge and consent of Iran, or even more than that.
Then why is Israel insisting on continuing to maintain total secrecy? The only logical explanation (except for the embarrassment of Syrian President Bashar Assad, which doesn't particularly bother Israel), is the desire not to make things hard for the U.S. administration.
Crossing the Ronulan Neutral Zone
Posted by: Dale Franks
Whenever you criticize Ron Paul, a number of defenders—usually people who are not regular readers or commenters—pop in to take you to task. I don't mind it so much, even when they copy and paste their comments from other blogs to make their points, such as comment #6 here at Blogs for Victory and the ninth comment to my previous post, both from Francine. After all, when you're on fire you want to share it.
Actually, I kind of like it, since it's so instructive.
So, why Ron Paul? I mean, he has no chance of winning, so why not go after Mitt or Rudy? As commenter "mkultra" puts it:
Rudy will become the wingnuts nominee for President. My guess is this site will eventually endorse him. After all, how many posts have appeared on this site critiquing Rudy compared to those critiquing Ron?
I dunno. I don't care either. I blog about what interests me at a particular point in time. Rudy doesn't interest me. Don't like him much, but other than that, there's nothing particularly weird or amusing about his campaign that causes me to sit up and take notice. I suppose I prefer him to anyone the Democrats are likely to nominate, but only because he promises us to take a trip down the road to hell a bit slower.
On the other hand, if Rudy breaks off in the middle of a speech and begins shouting, "It's the Freemasons! The Freemasons who are destroying America!" I'm sure I'll come up with something to say about it.
I think the other thing about Ron Paul I dislike is that, he personifies the old-school libertarian tendency to make the perfect the enemy of the good. As the Club for Growth details in his voting record, Mr. Paul has voted against free trade agreements, school vouchers, tort reform, and has—gasp!—even done a bit of nosing around at the pork trough. In each case, these votes have been made because Mr. Paul has in mind more perfectly libertarian solutions. And if we can't have them, then, to him, that means we get nothing. To him, some imperfect progress towards more freedom in these areas is worse than no progress at all. As the Club for Growth says:
But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.
Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.
None is not better than half a loaf.
In any event, to return to the proximate case, Not only did I find Ron Paul's statement on racism to be baffling, I find some of his defenders to be baffling, too.
Ron Paul spoke clearly about his opposition to racism.
His claim that it is collectivism and contrary to the ideal of individualism is almost exactly the way Ayn Rand described it.
His claim that it is collectivism is simply wrong, according to common understanding. The electorate, in general, neither knows nor cares how Ayn Rand described collectivism. When the electorate looks up "collectivism" they find that the Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines it as, "the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it as "The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government." The WordNet Dictionary offers the following definitions: " 1. Soviet communism [syn: Bolshevism] 2. a political theory that the people should own the means of production"
Collectivism means something specific, you see, and you don't get to hijack the language and apply a term to a completely different meaning than the common understanding. To do so is to willingly invite incomprehension.
Many libertarians believe that the Federal government should not have the power to prohibit state policies, even if they are bad. This would include enforced segregation. (Or even slavery.) Those libertarians believe that appeals to state constitutions, or else libertarian political movements at the state or local level should change those unjust policies.
And yet, in 100 years of Jim Crow, neither "appeals to state constitutions" nor" libertarian political movements at the state or local level" did so. The federal government did so through legislation. Why, one wonders, did that come about, what with the amazing efficacy of "appeals to state constitutions" and the like?
Moreover, I've got a copy of the constitution somewhere around here that says the United States will guarantee to each state a republican form of government. Now, whatever a "republican form of government" may be (the Constitution doesn't define it), it isn't one where everyone gets to vote, except black guys. So, I have to wonder, if the argument is that enforced segregation or slavery is not approachable by the Federal government, then in what way does Article 4 of the Constitution have any force at all? And even if you argue that Art. 4 doesn't mean what I think it means, then you now have to explain how, precisely the 14th and 15th Amendments don't give the federal government the explicit power to strike down segregation.
Slavery, of course, we don't have to address, since the 13th Amendment specifically prohibits it.
So, libertarians may well "believe that the Federal government should not have the power to prohibit state policies, even if they are bad." They may also believe that fuzzy kitties and fluffy bunnies should fall from the sky, for all the good it'll do 'em.
Many libertarians believe that government should not prohibit private discrimination... All libertarians are quite aware that opposing laws against private discrimination or taking a strong "federalst" [sic] stance will result in charges of racism
Well, the reason it will result in charges of racism is because, under such a regime, there will simply be more of it. Are you seriously arguing that if private racial discrimination were allowed that no one would engage in it? I wouldn't. I support legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage. I automatically assume that if those things are made legal, there will be more of them.
As a result, I also assume that there are a number of people of all races, who would simply choose to discriminate against other races of people if private discrimination were allowed. I don't have to make value judgments about whether people should to that to accept that they will.
Many libertarians believe that the market system tends to destroy racial discrimation [sic]...
That may very well be true, in the sense that, absent a concerted effort by government to enforce a discriminatory regime, the free market will result in less discrimination. To the extent that discrimination is unsupportably economic, some people will be forced not to discriminate if they wish to support their families. The obvious corollary to this is that to the extent that it is economically supportable, some people will discriminate. However, it is also true that, an increase in overt discrimination will inevitably occur, even if only at the margin, as opposed to a regime that outlaws private discrimination. One should at least be honest enough to acknowledge the truth of this. The question then becomes, "will there be more or less overt discrimination in a regime where private discrimination is allowed, as opposed to the current system, which outlaws it?" I think the answer to that question is obvious.
But, let's be very clear here. Ron Paul was making a different argument. His statement was:
The true antidote to racism is liberty... Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
That simply isn't true. Free-market capitalism may very well reduce overt discrimination in the circumstances described above. But capitalism is an economic system (and the only rational one in existence), not a system of moral improvement. Capitalism provides incentives that reward behavior, not moral laws that affect one's inner life. Capitalism will certainly reward you for overcoming your revulsion at other races in order to take their money, but it can't make you like it.
I invite the Ronulans to respond. Assuming anyone is interested enough to take a break from Turkey Day.
Road to Nowhere
By Richard Baehr
The effort to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians is today premised on the belief that if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, there would soon be a basis for achieving a stable two state solution and an end to the violence between the parties. Both recent history and the current state of the conflict suggest this is nonsense. Nonetheless, there are so many people invested in the logic of the argument that "the Israeli occupation is the real problem", that it is worth one more time reiterating why this is not the case.
The peace processors -- whether from the EU, the UN, the US State Department, or the current government of Israel --assert that not only would Israel and the Palestinians rapidly achieve peace following a withdrawal of the IDF and a dismantling of many settlements in the West Bank, but soon thereafter, there would be much good will in the Muslim world toward the United States, presumably earned for pressuring Israel into taking this step.
To test this hypothesis, let us consider what happened in Lebanon and Gaza following those Israeli withdrawals in 2000 and 2005. One definition of stupidity is to do the exact same thing you have done several times before, believing that this time, it will yield different results. There is no reward in international affairs for stupidity.
As to Lebanon, Israel occupied southern Lebanon in 1982 after continuous terror attacks were launched from there into northern Israel (Maalot, Kiryat Shemonah among them). These were some of the most hideous terror attacks in Israel's history: gunning down 21 school children in cold blood, for instance, in Maalot. In 2000, Israel left the small security zone it had maintained in Lebanon after Israelis grew unhappy with the mounting IDF casualty toll in South Lebanon, mainly from roadside bombs planted by Hezb'allah, a Shiite terror group aligned with Iran, as well as a devastating midair helicopter collision that killed over 70 IDF personnel.
Hezb'allah of course is the same group that was responsible for the murder of almost 300 Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, and the murder of over 100 Argentinian Jews in two grisly attacks in the 1990s. While the IDF had suffered casualties in the fighting with Hezb'allah, the security zone had worked for 18 years to totally cut off terror attacks from Lebanon into northern Israel. The UN, no friend to Israel of course, was invited in after Israel withdrew, and agreed that Israel had withdrawn behind the international boundary, in accordance with UN resolution 425.
The government of Lebanon had indicated before Israel withdrew that if Israel did leave, it would move in its own forces and police the border. This never happened. Instead, Hezb'allah moved in and seized control of the border area. Hezb'allah received over 10,000 rockets from Iran, trans-shipped through Syria. From the time of the withdrawal there was regular shooting at Israelis in the border area, the kidnapping and almost certain murder of three soldiers, an incursion and shooting attack that killed 7 civilians and other killings as well, all before the incident which touched off the 2006 war -- the kidnapping and murder of 8 Israeli soldiers.
In that 5 week war, 160 Israelis died and a fifth of Israel's population fled from their homes or lived in basement bunkers for over a month. Hezb'allah's firing of 4,000 rockets in 5 weeks created this level of terror and disruption, and these by and large were not very precise rockets.
Following the 2006 war, Israel again withdrew from the areas it had occupied in the fighting and turned territory over to the Lebanese army and UNIFIL. But alas, this has changed nothing. Hezb'allah has been re-supplied and now has more rocket power than before the 2006 war, including longer range rockets and missiles. Hezb'allah has argued that Israel did not fully withdraw from Lebanon in 2000, and that a small land area still held by Israel called Shebaa Farms was really part of Lebanon. Hence the Israeli occupation continued and justified their maintaining a militia.
Hezb'allah has now stopped using Shebaa Farms as the sole excuse for their continued violence against Israel and their effort to train and supply Palestinian terror groups in Gaza and the West Bank. Now they say their struggle against Israel will continue until all of Palestine (meaning the current state of Israel) is free of Zionism, and the Jews are expelled from the Arab land.
The real facts about Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon are these: Israel is now less secure on the northern front than when it maintained the security zone, its towns are closer to enemy fire, and the end of the occupation did not end the terrorism or fighting.
One postscript to the withdrawal from Lebanon in the Spring of 2000 was that it was followed just a few months later by the Camp David talks between Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat and President Bill Clinton, the summit that was hoped would resolve all the final status issues in the Oslo process -- settlements, borders, Jerusalem, water, and refugees. The talks collapsed when Arafat walked out, and but two months later the Palestinians began their second and far deadlier intifada. Palestinian officials have admitted that the planning for the second intifada began immediately upon the end of the Camp David summit.
The staged shooting of the young boy, Mohammed Al Dura at the Netzarim Junction was the spark for creating that intifada, along with the rock throwing and attacks that followed the visit to the Temple Mount by then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon. In any case, many observers believe that Arafat interpreted Israel's withdrawal from South Lebanon as a sign of national fatigue and capitulation -- that Israel was so anxious for an end of the conflict that it could no longer realistically judge the implications of political concessions made under fire.
That bet -- walking out of Camp David and starting a new intifada -- worked for the Palestinians, as the offer made by Israel at Camp David was sweetened by a few percent more of the West Bank at Taba, six months later, after a few months of deadly Palestinian terror attacks in the territories and in Israel.
And then there was the disengagement from Gaza in 2005. For years the Israeli and American Jewish peace camp had called for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. In 2005 it happened, with Ariel Sharon at the helm of Israel's government. The IDF removed nearly 9,000 settlers and pulled all IDF forces out of Gaza. Did this bring peace? Not if you count the over 5,000 rockets fired over the last 26 months at Sderot, a town now one fifth smaller than it was before the disengagement. The Palestinians are succeeding with their rocket fire in driving Israel from territory in pre-‘67 Israel.
Not only did the disengagement not bring peace, it bought the terror group Hamas to power in Gaza. Hamas is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, and has always declared that a two state solution was unacceptable. Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in both Gaza and the West Bank, and in a one week coup in June 2007, overtook the PA security forces in Gaza, though outnumbered 5 to 1, to take complete control of the territory, slaughtering almost 200 Fatah men in the one week battle. In but 5 months, they have imposed a Taliban-style terror state in Gaza. Fifty tons of weapons have been smuggled from Egypt into Gaza during that period. Smuggling obviously works. You can smuggle in food, or cigarettes, or cars, or weapons. Hamas has chosen what matters.
We also know that Hamas wants to have both manufacturing and agriculture enterprises in Gaza. But the manufacturing program consists of but one product: more accurate, longer range, and hence more lethal rockets. Rockets are now hitting the outskirts of Ashkeleon and go deeper into the Negev. It would be hard to argue that Israel improved its security by withdrawing from Gaza.
Which bring us to the current initiative to hold a peace conference in Annapolis between PA leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israel. Given what has occurred in south Lebanon and Gaza, if you believe that if only Israel left the West Bank there would be peace, there are two possible explanations:
1. you are a Palestinian propagandist (that's fine, just admit it); or
2. you are startlingly naive about the nature of this conflict, in particular the intent of Israel's enemies.
To begin, the PA is able to hang on in the West Bank today for only one reason: the presence of the IDF. In the second intifada, lest we forget, every single suicide bomber came from the West Bank, except for one incident with two terrorists traveling on British passports who entered from Gaza. The simple reason for the absence of attacks from Gaza is the fence around Gaza, which prevented Hamas from getting suicide bombers into Israel.
The second intifada ground to a halt through several Israeli actions: targeted assassination of various terror group leaders, construction of a security barrier that made entry into Israel from the West Bank more difficult, and the IDF re-positioning itself in various Palestinian cities after a series of deadly attacks in March 2002, culminating in the murder of over 30 mostly elderly Israelis at a Netanya seder.
The IDF had given control of these cities over to Yasser Arafat during the early years of the failed Oslo process. They quickly became bases for attacks against Israeli settlers and Israelis within the green line both before the intifada and of course during it. In 2006 there were very few terror attacks, but that was in large part because the IDF stopped 71 suicide bomb plots by terrorists in the West Bank, with 279 Palestinians arrested in these sweeps, including 45 already wearing suicide belts.
Hamas won the elections in the West Bank in 2006. As in Gaza, their brand of resistance and martyrdom was more popular than the idea of compromise. The population in Gaza and the West Bank is a very young one: median age 14. A very high birth rate -- 5 to 6 per woman of child bearing age -- has created this situation. And this young Palestinian population has been steeped in 15 years of non-stop incitement and propaganda directed at Israel, Jews and America, a process begun by Yasser Arafat, our supposed partner for peace, after his return form Tunis. This incitement campaign has been unceasing, in the Palestinian media, schools, mosques, and summer camps.
Some wine and cheese Palestinians, (e.g. Saeb Erekat), who spend a lot of time with the likes of Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk and negotiators from left of center Israeli governments, seem reasonable to outsiders. But in Arabic, the message to the Palestinian population was consistent and different from the diplomat-speak of the Palestinian envoys: jihad until victory, glory to the suicide bomber martyrs, and resistance until the collapse of Israel.
The idea that most West Bank Palestinians would accept a two state solution and give up their 60 year grievance against the existence of Israel, is absurd.
Perhaps the greatest absurdity, though, is the demand by Palestinians for an immediate halt to "natural growth" in Israel's settlements in the West Bank. Presumably, natural growth, or settlement expansion (new construction or expansion of homes) to accommodate growing families, will end if the settlers just stop having babies. Of all the people in the world who might stand out as hypocrites for such a demand, the Palestinians take the prize.
Of course the very idea of a two state solution today is nonsensical, with Hamas in firm control of Gaza and Abbas only nominally in control of the West Bank. Were Israel to withdraw from West Bank settlements and pull back the IDF in exchange for some vague promise of non-violence or future crackdown on terror groups in the West Bank, none of this would affect the situation in Gaza. Only Israel can displace Hamas in Gaza, not the PA or Fatah forces. And with the IDF withdrawn, the West Bank would be much more likely to fall into the hands of Hamas, as happened in Gaza.
That possibility poses the great danger to Israel of an admittedly terrorist entity controlling the West Bank. Instead of rockets fired at Sderot, a city of 20,000, the rockets could be fired at Israel's coastal plain where 2/3 of Israel's Jewish population lives, but ten miles from several Palestinian cities. They could also be fired at planes flying into and out of Ben Gurion Airport. What country can survive such a breakdown in basic security?
So why should Israel do it? So some Jews will feel less guilty about being an occupier? Ken Levin in his book The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege argues that as a result of our long terrible history in country after country, and then to top it off the Holocaust, some Jews now seem to be unable to accept that they can be in a position of power. They are only comfortable being victims and envy the suffering of others, since suffering is righteous. So we accept the narrative of our enemies and assume we are the guilty party. This is not only a destructive tendency, it also ignores the history of this conflict.
So long as a Jew-killing ethos is the spoken language of every Arab country and Israel is viewed as a state that can be unraveled in stages, there is no hope for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and any of its neighbors who remain at war with the Jewish state after near 60 years as a nation. Israel has to dig in for a long siege. Little has changed since 1948 when the Arabs tried to emulate Hitler and eliminate the Jews of Israel. Most still want to. The only real change is the increase in firepower available to the regimes that have always found Israel a convenient way to deflect the pressures generated by their own despotic rule or find the presence of a non-Muslim state in their midst a cancer to be eradicated.
Certainly, rational people can find a two state solution that might be fair to both parties, assuming both sides were willing to end the conflict and accept the other's existence. That of course is true on only one side of this dispute. Israel paved the way for a Palestinian state by signing onto the Oslo process, and offered it to the Palestinians at Camp David. The Palestinians signed onto the elimination of Israel in stages with that same agreement.
For Israel, there really is nothing to negotiate and nobody to negotiate with at this point. At best, Israel can hope to manage the conflict with the Palestinians. And recent history has shown that management of the conflict works better when Israel is firm and decisive. Appeasing, conceding, and begging for recognition that is not coming, only sends the wrong messages to Israel's enemies.
Richard Baehr is political director of American Thinker.
No, the problem was the movies weren't radical enough
No repubs got assassinated or impeached
Give it up- you were wrong- just admit- you'll look less foolish in the end
Dredging up posts I made 2 months ago to justify your error now isn't very convincing
Pay attention:
I spoke of free elections in response to a question asking me to name one good thing that has happened since SH was deposed.
I never spoke of it as justification for the war.
Typical failure to deal with facts
you do realize that the main purpose of the surge was to have the Iraqi government develop political progress so that we might start to leave.
That is the ultimate purpose, sure.
But the first purpose was to reduce the sectarian violence to create a situation where politics could proceed
That should be obvious- you don;t have to do much research to figure that out.
Exactly what were the added troops for- to bodyguard the politicians
No, duh, it was to try and create a more livable less violent Iraq
It has succeeded there and you have to admit it now, but the lib rationalization has now moved on to " sure there is decreased violence, but the political situation isnt resolved"
A year from now if there is no political progress, you have a point. Right now it's just denial that the surge has worked in it's initial goal
Ron Paul’s Statement on Racism
Posted by: Dale Franks
Ron Paul, as we've mentioned several times, has garnered some attention due to the support that white supremacist groups have given to his campaign. Apparently, this attention has caused to issue a forthright official statement about the evils of racism.
But, while it a statement against racism, it's kind of an...odd one. Let's go through his statement in its entirety.
Divider
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
Well, that's an interesting start. I seem to remember that way back in the good ol' Rugged Individualism days, the rugged individualists in about half the country owned slaves. Black slaves, to be precise. That seems to me like the rugged individualists were sort of obsessed with racial group identities, at least insofar as they determined which group could be legally owned by other groups.
As I remember, they even promulgated very specific laws about how much black blood (one drop, basically) one could posesss and be considered a potential slave. Many of the rugged individualists also frowned on sexual relations between racial groups. And, by "frowned on", I mean "hung the offending member of the disfavored group".
I don't think that being "uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities" is a particularly new phenomena in American cultural life.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Um, OK. I mean, by definition, an obsession with racial matters is "collectivist" in the sense that one's racial group is a collective. But that isn't usually what we mean when we refer to the collectivist mindset. When we think of collectivism, we tend to think of Karl Marx, not Lester Maddox.
But, we'll come back to this in a bit.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
Well, that's true enough, I guess, but government doesn't actually try to combat it, do they? What government does is ban discrimination, i.e., the physical manifestation of bigotry through unequal treatment in housing, employment, etc.
Now, we can certainly have a discussion about whether government's proper role is to ban private discrimination, but I think we can all agree that, at minimum, government itself cannot be allowed to discriminate on the base of race. I think Equality Under the Law is supposed to be the ideal.
In any event, this statement of Mr. Paul's is certainly true in part, e.g. that the government should not be picking winners and losers in the marketplace, nor should it be distributing pelf to favored groups. But the idea that the government played any significant part in the racial practices of early America is simply ludicrous. Indeed, before FDR, most Americans had a fairly tangential relationship to the Federal government. Indeed, it was the federal government's generally hands-off attitudes towards racial matters that led slavery to fester, and after that Jim Crow.
Blacks weren't forced to drink at separate water fountains in Mississippi because the Feds were giving too much welfare money to black people.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
Again this is a perversion of what we usually mean when we refer to collectivism. Collectivism means a specific thing: grouping people by their affiliation with an economic class, the elimination of separate economic classes, and equality of economic outcomes. Racism is simply not collectivism, as normally understood. Racism, like collectivism, separates people into different groups, but for entirely different purposes, and in the pursuit of different objectives.
Collectivism's goal is to eliminate all group differences to create a unified whole...a "collective", if you will, of absolute equality. Racism's goal is to perpetuate group differences, and to permanently subordinate one group to another.
So the whole collectivist notion seems a bit out in left field to me.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
Actually, I don't think think liberty is an antidote to anything other than oppression. In a truly free society, in fact, each individual is free to think whatever he wishes about other racial groups, and decline to associate with them, do business with them, or serve them as customers.
What a person cannot do in a free society, is to coerce another person, or violate that person's rights. That is an entirely different thing from eliminating racism.
Liberty, in fact, is utterly silent on racism, except to the extent that the government of a free society may not in any way engage in it. Individual citizens are as free as they like to do so. Liberty is a mechanism that provides the elimination of coercion, not the inculcation of virtue.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant.
This is a non-sequitur. However warm and fuzzy the feelings about oneself that one derives from living as a free citizen, it doesn't really affect the feelings one has about others. In a free society, there are no favored groups that can prevent a member of a disfavored group from making individual achievements. It does nothing whatsoever, however, to make the members of one group feel any particular bonhomie towards the members of other groups.
Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Liberty is a political virtue, not a private one. Political virtues are great, of course, but they are not a solution to private vices. Indeed, a truly free society would provide individuals with more, not less, opportunity to indulge in private vices, as long as the rights of others are not violated in doing so. Liberty is the absence of coercion, not the presence of universal goodwill. Frankly, I am astounded that Mr. Paul would imply otherwise.
Divider
In essence, Mr. Paul's message is that government causes racism. But he ignores what must be a necessary corollary of that belief: if government has the power to cause racism, it must also necessarily have the power to combat it. You simply cannot have the power to do one without the other.
In a certain sense, of course, Mr. Paul makes a valid point. To the extent that government itself attempts to create favored and disfavored groups, it perpetuates racism. And one can certainly argue that government has in some cases done precisely that.
But one cannot ignore the fact that government action has, by and large, reduced overt discrimination in the last two generations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 essentially destroyed—completely and permanently—the Jim Crow laws of the South. Yet, any acknowledgment of this is sadly lacking in Mr. Paul's statement. Yes, government at the state level created Jim Crow. But government at the federal level eliminated it.
Mr. Paul seems to be making the old argument that "government is the problem". And all to often that argument is true. But, again, all to often, the problem is people themselves. And government, whatever its virtues or vices, does not solve the problems that arise from human nature. Neither, for that matter, does liberty. To argue otherwise is to argue for the perfection of man through political means. And that, my friends, is the very basis of collectivism.
Finally, I have to say that one can derive an uncomplimentary subtext to this message. And it is not one that that white supremacists, on the whole, will object to. Because the message I'm sure they'll get from Mr. Paul's statement is, "I'll stop giving your tax money to the..." well, you know.
I dont know how you make the jump form my replying to a question asking for ONE reason that IRaq is better now that SH is gone to thinking I defend SA
But then again, logic has never been your long suit
WHat does there still being deplorable conditions in SA have to do with the effect SH had on Iraq
Yes, SA's treatment of women is brutal. Yes, they should hold elections
You're just making my point, but are too dense to realize it
I guess you've never bothered to read the reports of Michael Yon that I've posted here
All WAre is saying is that the surge has worked , but that political reconciliation is necessary for long term stability.
No argument there
Yeah, I guess CNN is th standard for cutting edge independent journalism- LOL
After their debate fiasco, they ahve no claim to objectivity
Taxation, the future and fair shares
Posted by: McQ
Walter Williams takes a look at the reality of our tax policy as it exists and what ramifications it brings. First the numbers:
In 2005, the top 5 percent of income earners - those with an adjusted gross income of $145,000 and higher - paid 60 percent of all federal taxes; in 1999, it was 55 percent. The top 10 percent, earning income more than $103,000, paid 70 percent. The top 25 percent, with income of more than $62,000, paid 86 percent, and the top 50 percent, earning $31,000 and higher, paid 97 percent of all federal taxes.
And that's the way it has been for a few decades. Given those numbers it is certainly difficult - although it happens everyday - to argue that taxes have been shifted to the poor. The fact that the top tier of earners is on the hook for the bulk of taxes creates a particular cultural problem which is the antithesis of the basis for which this country is believed to have been founded:
That there are so many American earners who have little or no financial stake in our country poses a serious political problem. The Tax Foundation estimates 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders had no 2004 federal income tax liability. The study concluded, "When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans - 44 percent of the U.S. population - who are outside of the federal income tax system." These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?
Of course you don't. When you directly benefit from those programs, there is little if any incentive to change the model that makes that so. Given that fact, you can always count on their support, especially at the ballot box.
Williams further points out:
Similarly, what do you care about tax cuts if you' pay little or no taxes? In fact, you might be openly hostile toward tax cuts out of fear they might lead to reductions in handout programs from which you benefit. Survey polls have confirmed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350 billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes.
Again, tax cuts mean less money available for redistribution, and less money means fewer programs. Obviously tax cuts mean nothing to a non-taxpayer since they're not paying taxes anyway. So resistance to tax cuts by that group, given the possibility of expanding the welfare state which benefits them, is only natural.
Which brings us to the next point - what you can expect in the near future should Democrats take the White House. You can expect some version of the Charlie Rangel tax plan. As Kevin Hassett points out:
Since Rangel's tax hikes are focused on the rich, and the AMT is scheduled to draw ever more revenue from the middle class in federal budget estimates, the rate increases necessary to maintain current revenue levels are enormous. Rangel adds a 4.6 percent "surtax" on adjusted gross incomes above $500,000 in the first year of the law. This gives voters the impression that we are simply lifting the current top rate of 35 percent to the good old Clinton rate of 39.6 percent. But in 2011, when the Bush tax cuts expire, the surtax sticks, lifting the federal rate to 44.2 percent. Rangel also grabs revenue from the rich by phasing out exemptions and deductions. Add in the Medicare tax, and average state and local taxes, and the combined marginal income tax rate goes to 52 percent. As the accompanying chart illustrates, that would make our top marginal rate the second highest among the ten largest OECD economies, right below France.
And the Hassett chart makes probably the most persuasive argument about why what Rangel and the Democrats are talking about is not what we want for our economic future:
Given France's economic performance in the past, is that a model we want to emulate? Does a nation which believes in freedom, to include economic freedom, want to have a tax system which punishes the success of high earners?
And while you're pondering that, consider this concerning the Rangle plan:
This tax "reform" is revenue-neutral, which means that there is no money left over to fund, say, the universal health-care coverage so many of the Democratic candidates favor. If we lift the top rates to fund that too, then our rate would be far higher than that of any other major country, and begin to approach the 70 percent top rate of the 1970s.
Universal health care (which the Democrats are going to attempt in some form or fashion) coupled with this level of taxation would combine to cripple our economy. Those paying the freight aren't going to stand by mutely while up to 70% of their income is taken to be redistributed to others.
Will Atlas shrug at that point? I have no idea. But my guess is Atlas may take up residence in Ireland or Mexico or some other nation which isn't going to push confiscatory taxation on them all in the name of "paying their fair share". Where will that leave those not paying any taxes now?