Posted by: 3dc ||
07/11/2007 17:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
The now retired former lady head of MI5 had just indic this week that Britain stands a good chance of suffering a nuclear or WMD Terror event in next few years, which of course is why Russia, instead of pointing its LR missles and bombers at Terror-supp states like Iran, points these at the USA, Britain and NATO.
Excerpted from the speech delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate July 10, 2007; emphasis added.
The Committee has come up with the money to support our troops, and I have no doubt that the full Senate will follow step. Money and policy statements, however, are not all that is required at this moment in our nations history. Courage is required, Mr. President. Not the great courage exhibited by the brave men and women fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a smaller measure, the courage necessary to put our countrys interests before every personal or political consideration.
In this light I would like to discuss Americas involvement in Iraq. The final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus new counter-insurgency strategy arrived several weeks ago, and last week I had the opportunity to visit these troops in theatre. From what I saw and heard while there, I believe that our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making progress in a number of areas. Id like to outline some of their efforts, not to argue that these areas have suddenly become safe they have not but to illustrate the progress that our military has achieved under General Petraeuss new strategy.
The most dramatic advances have been made in Anbar Province, a region that last year was widely believed to be lost to al Qaeda. After an offensive by U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned al Qaeda fighters out of Ramadi and other areas of western Anbar, the provinces tribal sheikhs broke formally with the terrorists and joined the coalition side. Ramadi, which just months ago stood as Iraqs most dangerous city, is now one of its safest. In February, attacks in Ramadi averaged between 30 and 35; now many days see no attacks at all no gunfire, no IEDs, and no suicide bombings. In Falluja, Iraqi police have established numerous stations and have divided the city into gated districts, leading to a decline in violence. Local intelligence tips have proliferated in the province, thousands of men are signing up for the police and army, and the locals are taking the fight to al Qaeda. U.S. commanders in Anbar attest that all 18 major tribes in the province are now on board with the security plan, and they expect that a year from now the Iraqi army and police could have total control of security in Ramadi. At that point, they project, we could safely draw down American forces in the area.
The Anbar model is one that our military is attempting to replicate in other parts of Iraq, with some real successes. . . .
I offer these observations, Mr. President, not in order to present a rosy scenario of the challenges we continue to face in Iraq. As last weekends horrific bombing in Salahuddin Province illustrates so graphically, the threats to Iraqi stability have not gone away. Nor are they likely to go away in the near future, and our brave men and women in Iraq will continue to face great challenges. What I do believe, however, is that, while the mission to bring a degree of security to Iraq, and to Baghdad and its environs in particular, in order to establish the necessary precondition for political and economic progress while that mission is still in its early stages, the progress our military has made should encourage all of us. . . .
Now that the military effort in Iraq is showing some signs of progress, the space is opening for political progress. Yet rather than seizing the opportunity, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not functioning as it must. We see little evidence of reconciliation and little progress toward meeting the benchmarks laid out by the President. The Iraqi government can function; the question is whether it will. . . .
In taking such steps, we must recognize that no lasting political settlement can grow out of a U.S. withdrawal. On the contrary, a withdrawal must grow out of a political solution, a solution made possible by the imposition of security by coalition and Iraqi forces. Secretary Kissinger is absolutely correct when he states that precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster, one that would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia, produce greater violence among Iraqi factions, and embolden radical Islamists around the world.
Let us keep in the front of our minds the likely consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should any of the various amendments forcing a withdrawal become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, and more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. . . .
If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?
Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed state and a terrorist sanctuary, in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once before, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity. We know that today there are terrorists in Iraq who are planning attacks against Americans. We cannot make this fatal mistake twice. . . .
I know that senators are tired of this war: tired of the mounting death toll, tired of the many mistakes we have made in this war and the great efforts it requires to reverse them, tired of the wars politicization and the degree to which it has become embroiled in partisan struggles and election strategies. I understand this fatigue, and yet I maintain that we, as elected leaders with a duty to our people and the security of their nation, cannot let fatigue dictate our policies.
The soldiers I met last week have no illusions about the sacrifices necessary to achieve their mission. On July 4th I had the great privilege to be present as 588 troops reenlisted in the military and another 161 were naturalized as U.S. citizens. Those men and women, taking the oaths of enlistment and citizenship in the center of Saddams al Faw Palace, they understand the many hardships made in our name. They have completed tour after tour, away from their families, risking everything everything for the security of this country. They do so because they understand that, however great the costs of this war, the costs are immeasurably greater still if we abandon it prematurely. All they ask is that we support them in their noble mission.
I wish we had planned to fight this war correctly the first time, but we can no more turn back the clock to 2003 than we can wish away the consequences of defeat by imposing some artificial deadline for withdrawal. Last week in Iraq, I met the bravest men and women our country has to offer, and not one of them told me that it was time to go, or that the cause is lost. They are frustrated with the Iraqi governments lack of progress. They are buffeted by the winds of partisanship in Washington, talking today of surges and tomorrow of withdrawal, voting to confirm General Petraeus and then voting for a course that guarantees defeat. But in the end, they know that the war in Iraq is part of a larger struggle, a war of moderation and stability against the forces of violence and extremism. They recognize that if we simply pack up and leave, the war does not end. It merely gets harder.
I am no particular fan of John McCain. I admire him for his service in Vietnam and his courage facing his struggles as a POW. On the other hand, "campaign finance reform" is a load of unconstitutional nonsense, he's a little full of himself (a common disease in the Senate), and on some issues he's been a little too quick to say what the dominant opinion elite want to hear. (Those of you for whom immigration is a hot button issue have other reasons to be disappointed in him, I know.) He's not my first choice in the primaries.
But.
He gets it. On the One Big Thing, he gets it.
He understands that there's a war on and we need to win it. He appreciates that the bad guys are bad guys, and bad guys need to be defeated--not appeased, not negotiated with, not ignored, not minimized, not treated as a political opportunity, but defeated--and when faced with a choice between doing the right thing and the easy thing, he wants to do the right thing.
Compare and contrast with the linguini-spined wet-finger-to-the-wind follow-the-poll-numbers types (*cough* Lugar! *cough* Hillary! *cough*), and the ones who are eager to give the terrorists a victory if it means more Democrats get elected.
God bless him.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/11/2007 09:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
And he gets it on the single most important issue of the day.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/11/2007 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Gee John. How many Americans have died or been crippled by the jihadists in the last 7 years? How many Americans have been killed or maimed by illegals in this country in the same period of time? You seem to be able to walk away from the death toll of the latter to do nothing to truly solve the threat other than 'declare victory' by legalizing the situation. How come you 'get' the threat in the former and not the latter? Not enough Muslim votes to sell out on?
#3
The MSM has been saying that the war and immigration has torpedoed his campaign. I'm inclinded to think it was immigration. He gets the war and the importance of it. If we don't fight the war to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will pay hell later.
#4
Standard leftie line: More folks die in car crashes than from terrorism.
Which misses the whole point,which is that terror is an aggression, its disruptive beyond the deaths involved, and its the responsibility of the federal govt to stop it.'
Its the responsibility of local and state govt to enforce traffic laws. and all other ordinary criminal laws, whether violated by illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, native born, or whatever.
Whether you like the immigration bill, or feel its too soft (i doubt many here thinks its too harsh) claiming its more important than victory over radical Islamism, is falling into the same logical trap as the far left.
#5
Unfortunately, John and Joe are speaking to a wall of resistance. I am now more convinced than ever that the reason the NYTs wants immediate withdrawl and guys like Lugar and Domenici are going dark is no one wants to see "Bush" win in Iraq. Its not that they don't want to see the US win but Bush lose. It is the worst form of narcissism and political selfishness. Bush needs to do some political gamesmanship himself to help Petraeus. One, have Cheney resign and appoint McCain as his VP or better yet Guliani. Send Gonzalez down the road. Remove all the distractions to the war and reinforce the mission at home. You win battles in theatre and lose wars at home. Does Bush get that part? I am beginning to think not.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/11/2007 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
McCain gets the war - no doubt & I agree w/him on that point.
The reason his campaign is in the toilet is due to his idiotic immigration stance. That's why the repub base is fleeing him. (though the finance reform was another poke in the ribs)
You can't have one w/out the other. Bush doesn't get it either - which is why the base is fleeing him as well. If you care about American sovereignty and security you fight the war tooth and nail in Iraq and build a wall (not some tin fence) on your borders. Case closed. All else is bozo the clown political peacockery. If Bush really wanted to win the war in the most efficient manner possible he would shut down the media in iraq, loosen the ROE's and turn the lads loose. He would simultaneously need to do more press meetings and go on the offensive about what is going right in Iraq, plus, it wouldn't hurt if he beat up the media now and again about good our economy really is and call them on their bullsh*t wrt iraq. Unfortunately he's painful to listen to & kind of an elitist. Additionaly I think gets real bad PR advice.
#7
Notice Broadhead6 he had no problem bad mouthing the 'nativists' and use his sock puppets to brand those who believe in the physical sovereignty of the US as racists. Go figure his glad handing with the war critics in the media or Congress.
And LH - what the left doesn't grasp is that we don't accept the death toll on the highway either and are just as upset with letting the butchers, be they AQ or multiple offense DUIs, get away with murder in either case.
#9
Its not that they don't want to see the US win but Bush lose.
Bingo! It is truly despicable but these people care less about national security than they do about petty politics. If this was Clinton's war they'd be lining up behind him/her in support just like they did in Kosovo which really was a blunder.
But Jack, Bush should be the one to resign, not Cheney. History's judgement may be kinder but I think Bush is a failure. Our border with Mexico is a helluva lot closer to me than Iraq is. So, while I agree with what McCain says about Iraq, his position wrt immigration causes me to question not only his judgement but Bush's too. If they don't respect Americans' desire for a secure border and NO AMNESTY how can we trust them with a war? OK, forget what any of us think about amnesty and look at it this way: They should have known that they would lose the crucial support of the conservative base over amnesty. I knew it and I'm just an ordinary citizen. So the only conclusion left is that they really are too stupid to be in positions of leadership. I don't know if Cheney would be any better but I don't see how he could be any worse.
#10
Its not that they don't want to see the US win but Bush lose.
It may be semantics, but take a listen to the anti-war crowd talking on TV: how often do they say "war" vs. "failed policy"? It is easy and righteous to oppose a "failed policy". Not so much with respect to a war.
#11
You win battles in theatre and lose wars at home.
Our military has no problem winning wars on the field. I doubt they can be beaten if unleashed and allowed to wage war. Too bad our military does not have a Congress and leadership worthy of them. Too many of our recent Presidents are too worried about their legacy instead of taking care of business and letting the legacy take care of itself.
#1
"We did not want this operation to happen. Till our last we aimed to save lives. It is you who prompted Ghazi on the phone to be steadfast and not to lay down his weapons," ul-Haq accused Aziz. Aziz responded by calling ul-Haq and Musharraf the "biggest hypocrites", but he did admit that he had told Ghazi not to accept any humiliating terms of surrender.
A hopeless situation given how anything but a complete and total capitulation by Pakistan's military would be seen as "humiliating terms of surrender".
In a statement the chairman of the Communist Party of Pakistan, Jameel Ahmad Malik, said: "The religious fundamentalist forces in Pakistan are the brainchild of the ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], the military intelligences and American imperialism."
"Islam had nuttin' to do wid it."
The reference was to Pakistan-based mujahideen or Islamist militants who successfully fought the Soviets in Afghanistan through the 1980s with support from Washington.
For which we were rewarded with the 9-11 atrocity. If there is one single Muslim majority country that actually deserves first use of American nuclear weapons, it is Pakistan. Their assembly line of jihadis has brought untold grief to this world and infected innumerable minds. Only Saudi Arabia can claim larger numbers. Then again, Saudi Arabia needs to be reserved for an exceptional display of American displeasure when the time comes.
Pakistans military is complicit in the worsening security situation in Afghanistanincluding the resurgence of the Taliban, terrorism in Kashmir, and the growth of jihadi extremism and capabilities, says a new report from the Carnegie Endowment. Furthermore, current Western policies reinforce Pakistans political weakness and contribute to regional instability by allowing Pakistan to trade democratization for its cooperation on terrorism.
In Rethinking Western Strategies Toward Pakistan: An Action Agenda for the United States and Europe, visiting scholar Frederic Grare analyzes the cost of continued military rule in Pakistan and presents new guidelines for Western policies. Grare argues that while Pakistan may partially cooperate with the West against international terrorism, without democratization Pakistan will continue its policies, resulting in continued regional instability.
Key Conclusions:
Pakistans army has inflated the threat of religious sectarianism and jihadi extremism outside its borders, particularly in Afghanistan and Kashmir, for its own self-interest. Faced with this seeming instability and a perceived lack of alternatives, the West adopted a more lenient attitude toward Pakistans military regime as a moderate stalwart against Islamic extremism.
Restoring stable civilian rule would lessen Pakistans obsession with the threat posed by India and focus Pakistans energy on its own economic development.
Of approximately $10 billion in assistance given to Pakistan since September 11, 2001, only $900 million has gone to developmentthe bulk being channeled to the military.
U.S. and European Policy Recommendations:
The West should insist that: General Musharraf cease violating the constitution by holding the position of both president and the chief of the army staff; free and fair elections be held with international monitoring; Pakistani infiltration into Kashmir and Afghanistan cease; and all terrorist infrastructure within the country be disbanded.
U.S. financial assistance should be explicitly directed towards any shortcomings that impede Pakistans cooperation in combating terrorism, and remain dependent on results.
Policies, and if necessary, sanctions, should be directed towards the military and Pakistans small elite. The general population should, as much as possible, be shielded from affects of withholding assistance.
The United States should cease its campaign against political Islam in Pakistan. It has proven counterproductive and made U.S. policy dependent on Pakistans military, which claims to be the strongest rampart against religious extremism.
This report proposes a middle way, writes Grare. It addresses some of the challenges that the Pakistani military regimes regional policies create for the international community, arguing that none can be resolved in isolation from the others. Arguing that the nature of the regime is the main source of trouble for the region, it urges a return to a civilian government according to Pakistans own constitution.
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/11/2007 08:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: ISI
#1
We need to force Pakistan on the issue of pursuit of terrorists across the border. We need to be going into those enclaves that enjoy immunity. The WOT has to be taken wherever necessary and that includes those havens in Pakistan. Musharaff has been tippy-toeing around. Hopefully, he has learned the lessons of the Red Mosque. If he hasn't, it will bite him again and again. The world cannot allow the crazies to obtain Paskistan's nuclear weapons. If we don't these nukes will be used on us.
#2
"Restoring stable civilian rule" Restoring? Restoring? What planet have they been living on?
Creating a sufficient mass of "stable civilians" from the current horde of Islamists would be a miracle.
#3
Our main interests with respect to Pak are securing the nukes, getting what info we can pry out of the ISI about OBL and Zowie's whereabouts, and cutting off aid to the Taliban.
The fact that Grare doesn't address these points pretty much invalidates his incantations policy prescriptions.
Then there's this gem:
The United States should cease its campaign against political Islam in Pakistan. It has proven counterproductive and made U.S. policy dependent on Pakistans military, which claims to be the strongest rampart against religious extremism.
If this is the case, then who is to say a de facto campaign against Pakistan's current gov't wouldn't also be "counterproductive"?
BTW, isn't it strange how the same people who always say "America shouldn't intervene" and "Exporting democracy is hopeless" have no qualms about prescribing these things whenever we're in no position to do so?
#4
Likewise does Grare put the cart before the horse:
The West should insist that: General Musharraf cease violating the constitution by holding the position of both president and the chief of the army staff; free and fair elections be held with international monitoring; Pakistani infiltration into Kashmir and Afghanistan cease; and all terrorist infrastructure within the country be disbanded.
To hold "free and fair elections" withoutfirst dismantling Pakistan's terrorist infrastructure is to invite another Hamas-style popularly elected government. Only this time around it would be a terrorist government with access to nuclear weapons. Clearly, the man is delusional or working out of Jimmy Carter's playbook.
Disabling Pakistan's terrorist infrastructure is such a monumental task that popular elections are nothing but a gleam in the future's eye. This is a classic damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't situation. Musharraf has specifically designed it this way to guarantee his position of power.
Allowing Musharraf to be deposed takes the risk of seeing jihadi terrorists ascend to power in Pakistan. Not getting rid of Musharraf only continues the charade of his supposed fight against terrorism as Coalition soldiers continue to lose their lives in Afghanistan and more foreigners perish at the hands of Pakistani jihadis.
We need to find a solution that addresses the negative aspects of both prospects. Sadly, one of the only ones that does is to throw up our hands and simply glass over this failed Islamic state. Not a pleasant prospect and one that goes against my own stance against first use of nuclear weapons.
Unless the West is willing to apply military force to appropriate Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and install some other form of more benevolent government, our choices are extremely limited. Allowing the situation to spiral further out of control is not an option.
As has been expressed before, the forceful partitioning of Pakistan between Afghanistan, India and, possibly, Kashmir begins to appear more and more desirable. I'm hoping other Rantburgers can suggest some alternatives to this gruesome no-win situation.
Ziauddin Choudhury
The recent newspaper headlines in Pakistan and elsewhere have put Lal Masjid -- a mosque and seminary in Islamabad -- and its denizens on the world map. The horrific incidents surrounding the mosque, and the resulting mayhem, are an object lesson on how things can go awry, with disastrous results, when a government coddles religious elements and religious institutions, either for political reasons or for fear of public backlash.
The Lal Masjid is a seminary that provides religious education based on Deobond curriculum to about 7,000 students in the male and female sections. The mosque, constructed and funded by the Pakistan government, was originally the main mosque in Islamabad, patronized by government officials including top army brass. Its central location placed it within close proximity to various government offices, the ISI among them. A senior government official originally served as the Imam of the mosque. But that was Pakistan before the incursion of religious extremism into Pakistan politics, led by General Ziaul Huq.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
The mosque, constructed and funded by the Pakistan government, was originally the main mosque in Islamabad, patronized by government officials including top army brass. Its central location placed it within close proximity to various government offices, the ISI among them.
End of story, the rest is all just elaborate window dressing. Musharraf's best friend is his worst enemy, namely, the ISI.
#2
The horrific incidents surrounding the mosque, and the resulting mayhem
Flowery writing, but the perp got killed as it should be. This kind of action is appropriate for other mosques that spew out hate, encourage terrorism, and try to tear down a country from within.
The "surge" is working. Will Washington allow the current progress to continue?
BY KIMBERLY KAGAN
... Today, Iraq is a different place from what it was six months ago. U.S. and Iraqi forces began their counterinsurgency campaign in Baghdad in February. They moved into the neighborhoods and worked side-by-side with Baghdadis. As a result, sectarian violence is down. The counterinsurgency strategy has dramatically decreased Shiite death squad activity in the capital. Furthermore, U.S. and Iraqi special forces have removed many rogue militia leaders and Iranian advisers from Sadr City and other locations, reducing the power of militias...
...This is the Baghdad Security Plan, and its mission is to secure the people of Baghdad. Even so, commanders are not ignoring the outlying areas of Iraq. U.S. forces have killed or captured many important al Qaeda leaders in Mosul recently, and destroyed safe havens throughout northern Iraq. Troops are conducting counterinsurgency operations in Bayji, north of Tikrit. And Iraqi forces have "stepped up" to secure some southern cities. The Eighth Iraqi Army Division has been fighting Shiite militias in Diwaniyah, an important city halfway between Basrah and Baghdad. As commanders stabilize central Iraq, they will undoubtedly conduct successive operations in outlying regions to follow up on their successes and make them lasting.
The larger aim of the new strategy is creating an opportunity for Iraq's leaders to negotiate a political settlement. These negotiations are underway. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is attempting to form a political coalition with Amar al-Hakim and Kurdish political leaders, but excluding Moqtada al-Sadr, and has invited Sunnis to participate. He has confronted Moqtada al-Sadr for promoting illegal militia activity, and has apparently prompted this so-called Iraqi nationalist to leave for Iran for the second time since January.
Provincial and local government is growing stronger. Local and tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala, Salah ad-Din, North Babil and even Baghdad have agreed to fight insurgents and terrorists as U.S. forces have moved in to secure the population alongside their Iraqi partners. As a result, the number of Iraqis recruited for the police forces, in particular, has risen exponentially since 2006.
This is war, and the enemy is reacting. The enemy uses suicide bombs, car bombs and brutal executions to break our will and that of our Iraqi allies. American casualties often increase as troops move into areas that the enemy has fortified; these casualties will start to fall again once the enemy positions are destroyed. Al Qaeda will manage to get some car and truck bombs through, particularly in areas well-removed from the capital and its belts.
But we should not allow individual atrocities to obscure the larger picture. A new campaign has just begun, it is already yielding important results, and its effects are increasing daily. Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope; they are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding. I know this all sounds a bit optimistic, but at least the WSJ is willing to print something positive about the situation in Iraq. If only it were enough to prevent the looming disaster of withdrawal our congress seems all too intent on making a reality. But it's a start.
#1
Moud is escalating, while Dubya is entrenching + will not pull out during his last term. Dubya leaves office in January 2009 - he's got 17+ months until January 2009 to strengthen the US-Allied position in the ME agz Radical Iran, with no guarantee that Dubya will be a normal "lame duck" POTUS. The Spetzies, US DemoLefties, anti-US Globalists, etal. all know it. None of the current of post-Dubya GOP-DEM POTUS candidates are serious about either completely withdrawing US milfors from the ME nor reducing to force levels acceptable to both Iran + Radical Islamists. *SONG LYRIC > "TROUBLE [US-IRAN WAR] IS HEADED OUR WAY". IMO Moud = Radical Iran can always decide to wait and see what Dubya's successor will do, BUT I DOUBT MOUD, MULLAHS + ISLAMISTS, ETC WILL WAIT FOUR YEARS UNTIL 2012 IFF DUBYA'S SUCCESSOR DOES LITTLE OR NOTHING. The former will interprete any post-Dubya/2008 elex US inaction or minimum force redux as proof of US intentions to permanently stay in the ME in strength.
The gangs are united by common needs, common enemies, and a desire to see Sunni Arabs running Iraqi again. The chatter among the gangs is that something spectacular needs to be done now, to prevent the gangs from being hammered into a state of marginalized ineffectiveness. That's where the talk of a "Tet Offensive" comes from. This would emulate the suicidal attacks South Vietnamese guerillas and North Vietnamese troops made in 1969. The idea then was that such a broad offensive would encourage the South Vietnamese population to rise up in support of the communists. Most South Vietnamese were anti-communist, but the communists had convinced themselves otherwise. Militarily, the attacks were a major defeat for the Viet Cong (the South Vietnamese guerillas) and a big setback for the communist effort to take over South Vietnam. But the American media declared it a U.S. defeat, and U.S. government support for South Vietnam declined, reached the point where, in 1975, the second North Vietnamese attempt at taking South Vietnam via conventional invasion worked, because the American Congress had halted even ammo shipments to South Vietnam.
Just like in Vietnam, such an offensive would be a military disaster for our opponents, but would likely force our withdrawal from the battlefield. Unlike Vietnam, it would NOT lead to eventual victory by our attackers, but to their ultimate extermination by the Shia (with or without Iranian 'assistance'.) It is essential for both the US and Iraq that any such 'offensive' be stopped utterly cold, because the media will paint anything less as our defeat and proof of the hopelessness of our cause.
#1
Oooohh, and Unca Walty Cronkheit's heirs in the legacy media are just a-tremble with happy anticipation for some big splashy "last offensive" like Tet... so they can join in one mighty chorus of "Flee! all is lost! Flee, I tell you!!!"
Never mind that the various criminal gangs would have been turned into so many puddles of something closely resembling strawberry jam. It's the essential truthiness that counts!
#3
They have a multiple problems, though. First is that they lack the raw numbers to pull off a major attack. Second and third is that they are hated by the non-criminal Iraqis and they cannot maintain OPSEC.
Plus they've already tried that sort of thing. The only parallel holiday they have to Tet is Ramadan, but that has been used for violence for so long that nobody is going to have their guard down, in fact, they will be expecting trouble.
So many of them are known to the police it will be near impossible for them to infiltrate Baghdad in any number, and they are also prone to spilling their guts when captured.
They are years late and a LOT of dollars short to pull of that sort of thing.
#4
I agree w/'moose. Though I'm sure the msm will overplay any brave freedom fighter fighting to the last bullet as much as they down play or not report at all our rebuilding schools, roads, and doing medical/dental liaison work w/the local iraqi communities.
#5
You should be able to tell when its about to start. That's when the AP finally has all its stringers in place and embeded with AQterrorists insurgent forces in Iraq.
#7
I would bet on AQ trying to make a big splash about the time Petraeus report is due. I would also bet on the MSM wringing their collective evil little hands and yelling quagmire; surrender. The Harry Reid, John Kerry, Murtha, and Nancy Pelosi, etc. will go along with the MSMs doom and gloom pronouncements.
On the other hand if AQ comes out for a Tet-like attack it be much to identify them and kill them.
#8
Amongst other things, what died with the VietCong in TET 1968 was also any Commie sectarian hope of a COMMUNIST SOUTH VIETNAM INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN FROM HANOI + NORTH VIETNAM. As for Iraqi gangs wanting to do something spectacular now, Iran is already moving down a general course for war wid the USA, vv AQ cells inside Amer + potential Amer Hiroshimas, escalating Iran-specific arms and military support for Iraqi insurgents [e.g. QUDS FORCE],escalating mil tensions in Lebanon in collusion wid Syria-Hizzies, etal. agz Israel, and routinely enticing or requesting the UNO + major foreign powers to unilaterally intervene on Iran's behalf agz the USA, be said intervention diplomatic andor military. REALITY > IFF NOT FOR WATERGATE AND NIXON'S RESIGNATION, SOUTH VIETNAM WOULD LIKELY STILL EXIST AS A NATION. NIXON REDUCED US COMBAT FORCE LEVELS IN SOUTH VIETNAM = "VIETNAMIZED" THE COMBAT, NOT ENDED US COMMITMENT TO SOUTH VIETNAM'S EXISTENCE. DUBYA IS NOT NIXON > will NOT resign nor stop entrenching while he's alive and still Prez.
Given the problems and U.S. casualties in Iraq, polls show a large majority of the American people believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Yet if we imagine what the world would look like today if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed, it seems clear that almost no outcome in Iraq would be as adverse to the interests of the United States as today's world with Saddam still in power.
It is important to recall that Saddam had thrown the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, and allowed them to return in 2002 only because of the credible threat of a U.S. attack. In addition, the sanctions regime was collapsing--Saddam had learned how to extract billions of dollars for weapons out of the humanitarian exceptions to those sanctions--and our European friends, and perhaps U.N. officials themselves, were complicit in this. Under these circumstances, Saddam could not have been "contained" or rendered harmless, and Iraq could not have been indefinitely subject to U.N. inspections. At some point, Saddam would have been able to throw out the inspectors again, with no further action by the U.N. It was clear that the U.N. itself would do nothing to enforce its own resolutions.
We also know from the reports of the weapons inspectors that Saddam and his scientists were working to develop nuclear weapons, work that certainly would have continued if Saddam had remained in place. Saddam had already demonstrated that he would use chemical weapons, and there is no reason in logic that he wouldn't also restore his chemical weapons stocks once the inspectors had left. He had the largest army in the region, and had shown a determination to use it for expanding his control beyond Iraq. It's not far-fetched, therefore, to consider what economists call a counterfactual--what things would look like today if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq. . . .
Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/11/2007 06:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Baath Party
#1
Moot point. World is much better off w/out Hussein and the thousands of jihadi dorks we've put 6' under. If most Americans can't connect the dots on that then we're kind of f*cked as a country. Luckily I have plenty of ammo.
#2
It's not just better without Saddam but Quadaffi turned over his WMD because of Saddams downfall. That's worth something as well. I think Khan's nuke exchange network was ferrited out as well due to info having to do with the combo but I'm not entirely certain on that last one.
#3
Yep, Khan was fingered as the go to guy for nukes by Ghadaffi. Plus, the literal warehouse of files that the Libyans turned over on their nuke program gave the West like 90% of the supplier network Khan was using in Europe.
The Bush administration's indecision about what it wants to see in Iran - regime change or behavior change - is hurting its ability to plan effective military steps or engage in persuasive diplomacy, according to a top Iran expert.
Ilan Berman, speaking at the conservative Hudson Institute on Tuesday, said that the US hasn't made that choice because it "hasn't yet grasped the fundamental threat to American interests" posed by Iran. Rest at the link
Posted by: gromgoru ||
07/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Guess its official - 2009 or mid-2009 'tis the last benchmark. The USA-Allies either accepts a nuclearized, misslized- and weaponized Iran + Radical Islamism-Fundamentalism, or we don't. Dubya leaves the WH in January 2009. Unless the USA makes some major ass-kissing concessions, Iran can't wait for 2012 = end of the first term of a post-dubya successor. IT will want to acquire nuke weapons before US entrenchment gets too strong to counter/intimidate.
#2
Guess its official - 2009 or mid-2009 'tis the last benchmark. The USA-Allies either accepts a nuclearized, misslized- and weaponized Iran + Radical Islamism-Fundamentalism, or we don't. Dubya leaves the WH in January 2009. Unless the USA makes some major ass-kissing concessions, Iran can't wait for 2012 = end of the first term of a post-Dubya successor. Iran will want to acquire de facto nuke weapons before US entrenchment gets too strong to counter/
intimidate.
#3
In the survey, 52 percent of Iranians said they favor their country developing nuclear weapons with the same number also saying it's important that Iran use its oil and gas revenue to develop nuclear arms.
However slim, that's a majority and needs to be taken seriously. Obviously, the survey's stats and process aren't available, but the lack of overwhelming unrest in Iran points towards some veracity in that 52% figure.
Yet that compared with nine in 10 who supported using the money to create jobs, tame inflation, buttress the oil and gas industry and develop nuclear power.
The only thing this indicates is that cognitive dissonance still remains an immensely popular pastime in the MME (Muslim Middle East). That former 52% majority increases the relevance of a preceding point made by Berman.
"I would think that any sober person" looking at the social and economic unrest in Iran today "would have to bet even money on the generation that's coming up," he said.
America needs to forget about "behavior change". That 52% figure literally screams intractability. Hidden in these statistics is the singular fact that our last and best hope for Iran is its younger generation.
These are people least likely to possess or have access to the weapons and strategic knowledge that can effect regime change.
Regime change in Iran is vital to any positive outcome from engaging them with military force. Decapitation of Iran's theocratic leadership is a critical signal that needs to be sent to all other MME nations.
As John David Lewis mentions in his stirring treatise regarding the defeat of Islamic theocracy, "No Substitute for Victory":
The Muslim world must be made to understand that any government that provides economic support to jihadists will be summarily destroyed. In order for this policy to be taken seriously, we must demonstrate its truthby destroying the Iranian regime and stating why we have done so. Only the clear threat that you will be next can break the entangled network of Islamic economic support for jihad that masquerades as economic development. There can be no more playing games with Saudi apologists who speak smooth English and describe their work as charity. In 2003, the International Islamic Relief Organization, a Saudi charity, claimed to have dug 1,615 wells throughout the Middle Eastbut it also established 4,400 mosques and distributed millions of Islamic books and pamphlets. The result has been the display, on television, of young children as True Muslims, trained to see Jews as pigs and apes, screaming Allahu Akbar and dedicating themselves to jihad. Such charity means raising money to spread the ideas, and tactics, of Totalitarian Islam. It must end.
[snip]
In summary, Political Islam, Militant Islam, rule by Islamic Lawand all the economic and intellectual support associated with itmust go. This means that Iran must go.
[emphasis added]
None of the above seems to have permeated a White House that still insists upon calling Islam "The Religion of Peace" [spit]. Until that changes, America's elite traitor class is nearly an equal danger to that of Islam itself.
#7
Since the 'thirties, US administrations have believed that religion is a source of stability in the Middle East. Jimmy Carter chased a secular government out of Iran, after a sustained campaign against the Shah's internal security parties. Bush2 tossed seculars out of Iraq; much of the early success in the liberation of Iraq, occured because of secret armistice deals with Shiite clerics. And the Wahabist grounded Saudis have never faced any criticism from any White House dweller. The President isn't the first dhimmi; hopefully he will be the last.
#8
The year 2012 has significance with both the Sunni's and with Catholics.
I'm catholic. How come nobody's ever told me about the significance of 2012?
Regarding the Maya calendar - I thought that was just when there was a particular alignment with the Milky Way ie. They worked out when the Earth lined up with a dark area within 2 bright arms of the Milky Way which they thought was a pathway to the afterlife. Not necessarily the end of the world (I hope). On the downside, however, if you miss the pathway to the afterlife you may end just end up staying on Earth with the mullahs - YIKES!
#10
I suspect the current administration's hesitation on dealing with Iran is mostly due to Iran's strategic location as a chokepoint on the world oil market. There are really no good answers. With the majority of Iran's citizens drunk on Islamofascist Kool-aid and willing to follow the mad mullahs to hell, the current policy to accelerate the collapse of Iran's economy just might work.
#11
Speaking of Maya Calendar, according this this scientist, the events of 2012 already happened back in 1997. Link
Is there an Alignment between the Galactic Equator and the Sun at Winter Solstice 2012?:
No.
In fact there is an alignment between the Sun and the Galactic Equator at the time of Winter Solstice, but it has already happened. It happened back in 1997 [21st December 1997 AD 14h 43m GMT]. So, if the Maya did go through the sequence of the argument given above, their astrological predictions were out by some 15 years. [Which actually would be pretty good, seeing as they didn't have computers or astrological software to help them.]
So the good news is if you were in any way worried about what might astrologically happen in 2012, don't worry: it already happened back in 1997.
[Note: the Sun never aligns with the Galactic Center itself, because the Sun's path through the heavens, as seen from Earth [the Ecliptic] lies more than 5° above the Galactic Center. This is something that Mr Jenkins himself has pointed out, but the fact has become garbled in subsequent coverage of his ideas.
#12
Los Angeles, Alta California - April 4, 2005 - (ACN) The coming Vatican Conclave to select the next "Vicar of Christ" may be the last according to religious sources knowledgeable in Biblical Prophecy, in Roman Catholic Church history and in the Indigenous traditions of the Americas. Information synthesised from Revelation and the Gospels in the New Testament, from Daniel in the Old Testament and from the Mayan Popol Vuh points to a coming cataclysmic event and the beginning of a totally new Era for mankind. This cataclysmic event (Fin de los Tiempos) will occur, according to the Mayan Long Calendar, on December 21, 2012 when the Earth and Sun align with the center of our Milky Way galaxy.
Biblical prophets as well as Catholic and other Christian scholars have for a long time written about the "End Times" and the second coming of Jesus Christ (Quetzalcoatl) to establish the New Jerusalem. What is not generally known is that many of the Old and New Testament Biblical prophecies of the "End Times" correlate amazingly with the religious beliefs of the Mayas and other Indigenous civilizations of the Western Hemisphere. These similarities are more apparent when one analyses the "End Times" account of St. John in the last chapter of the Bible called Revelation and the account of the "Fin de los Tiempos" in the Popol Vuh which is considered to be the Mayan (as well as the Mexica/Aztec) Bible.
The whole article is here: http://aztlan.net/the_last_pope.htm
Me, I'm planning on putting 2 cases of 2012 Vieux Chateau Certan in my cellar on 2014.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/11/2007 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Does it mean anything if the culture ended before their calendar does? Maybe they were over confident? Or the Spaniards arrived unexpectedly early? You gotta hate that in a guest, especially one who then goes ahead and steals the cutlery.
Posted by: My O Maya ||
07/11/2007 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Incidentally, I suspect elements within the administration fully grasp the Iran threat.
The rest of the admin--the president included--also grasp the political impossibility of mobilizing the country for war in Iran.
#15
eLarson, I have to dispute this. If Bush fully appreciated the Iranian threat he would use his last term executive powers to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran in light of how they constitute a clear and present danger. In such cases, the president is empowered to do so without congressional approval. All that needs to happen are massive bombing strikes against key facilities without real boots on the ground. It would all be over before the devil could get his shoes on. Congress wouldn't even have the time to get its panties in a wad.
Despite his trotting out "Islamofascism", that Bush continues to spew the Religion of Peace [spit] Kool-Aid indicates a distinct lack of grasp. No, I do not expect him to declare war on all Islam, but at least he could stop paying highly deceptive lip service to our devout enemy.
Word that Syria is telling its citizens to leave Lebanon by July 15th in anticipation of a [p]ossible eruption of violent crisis and even more shockingly, has already invaded Lebanon.
The Syrian army has penetrated to a depth of three kilometers into the Bekaa Valley. They are digging in, throwing up berms and revetments with the evident intent of staying a while. The invasion, coupled with the call for their citizens to get out of Lebanon means one of two things could be at work here; a gigantic bluff being run by Syria and Hizbullah in advance of the multi-party talks in Paris that will take place later this week or a genuine war warning. With the unpredictable Assad, its anyones guess at this point what he has in mind. But given the absolute, unbending determination the Syrian President has shown to keep the International Tribunal from meeting added to the fact that no one in the west appears willing to stand with Lebanon in this, her most desperate hour, I am leaning toward the belief that Syria is about ready to manufacture an incident that would set off a violent confrontation in Beirut between Hizbullah and the March 14th forces, giving Assad an excuse to re-occupy the country or allow Nasrallah to deploy his well armed, well trained militia against the March 14th amateurs.
Many signs recently have pointed to some kind of resolution to the 7 month long cabinet crisis that has virtually paralyzed the government. Nasrallah promised many months ago that the elected government would be overthrown peacefully and hasnt delivered. Hes had his followers in the streets of Beirut surrounding the government building while Prime Minister Siniora and his ministers have hung tough in the face of incredible dangers and provocations.
But time is running out on Assad which is why the rhetoric from the opposition has been escalating drastically the last 10 days. Lots of speculation but little in the way of hard news about the plans and purposes of the Assad/Hizbullah/Iranian axis. This presents something of a dilemma for Siniora and his besieged cabinet. They know a storm is coming but they dont know when and are unsure of its magnitude. A Hizbullah move to create a shadow government would probably generate a lot of publicity but would hardly change the power equation in the country. Hizbullah has been an independent force for years, exercising authority in the south in opposition to the government. They have their own infrastructure in place already. Any declaration by Nasrallah even if his government included Christians and Sunnis as ministers would fail to generate much support outside of the Hizbullah stronghold in the south.
This leads me to believe that Nasrallah has something else planned in conjunction with the formation of another government in opposition to Siniora. It could be, as Walid Phares points out, the initiation of some kind of violence in the streets past patterns suggesting a series of bombings possibly in Sunni areas of Beirut that would give legitimacy to Nasrallahs call for a new government to control the spilling of blood. This would certainly ratchet up the pressure on Siniora. His refusal to accede to Nasrallahs demands in the face of increasing violence might just might give Syria an excuse to move back into Beirut.
Would Assad dare? Michael Totten:
Syria can, apparently, get away with just about anything. I could hardly blame Assad at this point if he believes, after such an astonishing non-response, that he can reconquer Beirut. So far he can kill and terrorize and invade and destroy with impunity, at least up to a point. What is that point? Has anyone in the U.S., Israel, the Arab League, the European Union, or the United Nations even considered the question?
There has been no outcry about Syrias moving troops into the Bekaa from the United States, from the French, from the west, from the Arab League whose Secretary General Amr Moussa has been in Damascus talking with Assad in a futile attempt to head off disaster, from the Saudis, nor from the Iranians who MEMRI reports has moved from a position that opposed the idea of a Lebanese Civil War to now supporting Assads position that the International Tribunal must be headed off by any means necessary.
Who will stand with Lebanon? Will anyone fight to save whats left of Lebanese democracy? Even if Assad doesnt order his tanks into Beirut, it is clear that he and the opposition forces are slowly gaining the upper hand in this cabinet standoff. Siniora can do nothing except endure the pressure coming from Nasrallah and Assad. They have tried every formula possible without giving up their majority status to try and accommodate Nasrallah and his beef about Shia cabinet representation. Every time it appears that a solution is at hand, Nasrallah has backed off and raised the ante. He has variously demanded new parliamentary elections as well as holding hostage the presidential selection process until Siniora is gone and his handpicked toady is in place.
There simply is no placating Nasrallah. Compromise and accommodation are not his goals. He means to overthrow the government and will accept nothing less. The coming talks in Paris beginning Saturday among all parties is just more window dressing for Nasrallah, one more venue where he can spout his lies and sound reasonable, all the while plotting his next move in this deadly game of chess with Siniora and his western backed government.
The answer to the question of who might help Lebanon is unfortunately, no one who could do much good before the storm hits. The United States, already involved in one civil war in Iraq could hardly be expected to deploy any troops to Beirut in order to become embroiled in another. The French, with their long standing affection and sense of responsibility toward the Lebanese people wouldnt move militarily without some help from the EU and the US even if Sarkozy demonstrated a willingness to do so.
The United Nations would examine the situation carefully and after a couple of weeks of debate would issue a watered down resolution condemning the Syrians for meddling in Lebanon. As far as ordering the 13,000 UNIFIL force in the south to assist the Siniora government, that simply wont happen. Those forces are not configured for combat and besides, it would be a huge stretch to imagine the UN involving itself in a civil war by taking sides.
The Saudis, as Lebanons chief financial ally, could only stand and watch as Lebanon was gobbled up by Assad. King Abdullah has no desire to get into a shooting war with either Hizbullah or Syria. Other moderate Arab states would also condemn any coup in Lebanon but would except an Assad fait accompli as a fact of life.
Except for rhetoric, Siniora and the March 14th forces will find themselves alone to face the tiger. And as the situation moves toward a climax, the painful reality will be that in the face of a ruthless, determined foe, the United States and the west failed to protect and nurture the hope for democracy in one of the most pro-western, secular Arab nations in the world.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
The IDF was ridiculed by a top Hizzie leader in Lebanon today. NY SUN/WORLDNEWS > US Navy to reduce its presence in the Persian Gulf by end of summer.
#6
What, no paybacks for the 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks bombing? Counterproductive as it might seem, letting Lebanon twist gently in the breeze still makes some sort of sense.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
