Accounts of the occupation force members bear out how Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh and its paramilitary wings styled Razakar, Al Badr, and Al Shams Bahini worked fervently against the country's war of independence. For instance, Siddiq Salik, who was serving the Pakistan army as a major in Bangladesh in 1971, in his book 'Witness to Surrender' recounts the anti-liberation role of Jamaat, Muslim League and Nizam-i-Islam.
He observed that Jamaat leaders collaborated with them [Pakistan army] not only to advance their ideals of Pakistan as an Islamic state, but also to wreak vengeance on people they were at enmity with. Referring to the drives against Bangalee freedom fighters, he wrote, These operations were only a partial success because the West Pakistani troops neither knew the faces of the suspects nor could they read the lane numbers (in Bengali). They had to depend on the cooperation of the local people. The Bengalis, by and large, still cherished the hope of Mujib's return and assumed an attitude of passive indifference.
He continued, The only people who came forward were 'the rightists like Khwaza Khairuddin of the Council Muslim League, Fazlul Qader Chaudhry of the Convention Muslim League, Khan Sobur A Khan of the Qayyum Muslim League, Professor Ghulam Azam of the Jamaat-e-Islami and Maulvi Farid Ahmed of the Nizam-i-Islam Party. Describing his experience working with the Bangladeshi collaborators, the book reads, They had all been defeated by the Awami League in the 1970 elections and carried little appeal for the Bengalis. The people generally felt that they were outdated coins being given currency by the Army once again.
"But the Army, out of sheer necessity, valued their presence and followed their advice. I suggested in one of the meetings that instead of propagating the statements of this 'outdated coins,' it would be better to seek the cooperation of teachers, lawyers, artists and intellectuals who command respect in their respective fields.
Salik began his career as a lecturer after graduating in English literature and international affairs from Punjab University. He had been in journalism before joining the army as a public relations officer. He came to Bangladesh in January 1970 on a tour of duty that ended with the defeat of Pakistan on December 16, 1971. He was taken as a prisoner of war (POW) in India and was released after two years. He was in the army until his death in 1988.
Published by University Press Limited, Salik's book is the detailed professional account of the war. It deals mainly with his days during the war and as a POW in India.
Talking about how some members of the Pakistan army conducted themselves during the war, he said, During these operations, some troops, to the shame of all, indulged in looting, killing and rape. Nine cases of rape were officially reported and the culprits were severely punished, but the damage had been done. How many cases there were in all, I do not know .
The stories of these atrocities naturally alienated the Bengali population. They were not very fond of us before, but now they hated us bitterly. No serious effort was made to arrest this trend or diminish the hatred. Hence there was no question of mass co-operation by the Bengalis. Only those people joined hands with us who, in the name of Islam and Pakistan, were prepared to risk everything."
On the collaboration groups, Salik said, These patriotic elements were organised into two groups. The elderly and prominent among them formed Peace Committees, while the young and able-bodied were recruited as Razakars (volunteers). The committees were formed in Dacca as well as in the rural areas and they served as a useful link between the Army and the local people. Razakars were raised to augment the strength of the West Pakistani troops and to give a sense of participation to the local population. Their manpower rose to nearly 50,000 as against a target of 100,000.
The chapter named 'Insurgency' reads, "In September a political delegation from west Pakistan complained to General Niazi that he had raised an Army of Jamaat-e-Islami nominees. The general called me to office and said, 'From now on, you will call the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al Shams to give the impression that they do not belong to one single party. Referring to the 'dedication' displayed by the collaborators, it adds, The Al Badr and Al Shams groups were a dedicated lot, keen to help the army. They worked hard and suffered hard. About 5,000 of them or their dependent suffered at the hands of the Mukti Bahini for the crime of co-operation. Some of them displayed a sense of sacrifice comparable to the best troops in the world.
In the chapter titled 'An Opportunity Lost', Salik wrote, Some of them were genuinely interested in the integrity of Pakistan and they risked their own lives to cooperate with the Army, but a few of them also used their links with the Army to settle old score with pro-AL people.
"For instance, a rightist politician arrived one day in Martial law headquarters with a teen aged boy. He met me by chance on the Veranda and whispered in confidence that he had some vital information to impart about the rebels. I took him to the appropriate authority where he said that the boy, a nephew of his, had managed to escape from a rebels' concentration in Keraniganj across the Burhi Ganga river. The boy added that the rebels not only harassed the locals but also planned to attack Dacca city at night.
A 'cleaning operation was' immediately ordered. The commander of troops was briefed. The field guns, mortars and recoilless rifles were readied to 'soften' the target in a pre-dawn bombardment. The troops were to make a pincer move to capture it at day-break. I watched the progress of the action in the operations room where the gunfire was clearly audible. Soon some automatic weapons also joined the battle. Many people feared that the attacking battalion might not be able to bag all the 5,000 rebels reported in the locality. The operation was over after sunrise. It was confirmed that the target had been neutralised without any casualties to our troops."
To stress the point once again that the Bangladeshi collaborators had purposes other than pursuing the ideology of an Islamic state, Salik recollects, In the evening I met the officer who carried out the attack. What he said was enough to chill my blood. He confided. 'There were no rebels, and no weapons. Only poor country-folk, mostly women and old men got roasted in the barrage of fire. It is a pity that the operation was launched without proper intelligence. I will carry this burden on my conscience for the rest of my life'."
Hell probably apologize for the remark later but Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos of California, the only Holocaust survivor in Congress, told it like it is to some Dutch politicians: Europe was not as outraged by Auschwitz as by Guantanamo Bay.
The liberal Lantos is far from a friend of Gitmo. The Dutch sent these politicians here to bitch about Gitmo. No reporter attended a meeting between the Dutch and the congressman, but AP wrote a story based on Green Party legislator Mariko Peters.
The Dutch are threatening to remove their 1,600 troops from Afghanistan to protest Gitmo. Dutch politicians face growing problems with Islamic youths and likely fear a LIntifada like France suffered in 2005.
Peters said: We have to close Guantanamo because it symbolizes for me everything that is wrong with this war on terror.
To which Lantos apparently replied: Europe was not as outraged by Auschwitz as by Guantanamo Bay
He also said: You have to help us, because if it was not for us you would now be a province of Nazi Germany.
Good for him.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/28/2007 10:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And you missed "You've been on the military defense dole of the US for fifty years. The time has come for welfare reform, yours."
#2
Actually they would not be a province of Nazi Germany. The land would be a province of Nazi Germany. Dutch leftists would be lampshades decorating a province in Nazi Germany.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/28/2007 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Dutch are threatening to remove their 1,600 troops from Afghanistan to protest Gitmo.
Tell them to do just that -- but don't call when hugo wants aruba back....
Posted by: dan ||
10/28/2007 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Peters said: We have to close Guantanamo because it symbolizes for me everything that is wrong with this war on terror.
I recommend we close the GITMO confinement facility and move it to the Island of Texel. The muzzies will feel right at home with all those noisy goats and sheep. If the Dutch protest.... we can always start winking at the Germans eh?
#5
Liberal or not, it requires someone who still vividly remembers the lessons of WWII to put things in perspective. Only a Holocaust survivor has enough moral authority to pimpslap these cringing Dutch morons. If the Nazi concentration camps were run like like Gitmo, the Holocaust would not have happened.
When I was in Denmark, each and every Wednesday, they revved up the air raid sirens. In almost every Danish town, in one of the traffic roundabouts, is a German machine gun pillbox left intact as a reminder to future generations that it could all happen again. I find it curious that tiny Denmark has shown more spine in the GWoT than other nations many times its size.
I'm beginning to think that all the major cities in Europe should have left a square kilometer of bombed out buildings and rubble as a similar reminder to later generations of what awaits complacency and willful ignorance. Much like how America's primary goal in the MME (Muslim Middle East) should be eradicating shari'a law; If we are ever forced to rescue Europe from itself one more damn time, we'd best make sure to wipe out every last trace of socialism on the continent.
When history closes its bookssocialism, in all its statist forms of communism, social democracy and totalitarianismwill be found guilty of killing more people, starting more wars, destroying more wealth, causing more human suffering and doing more ecological damage than any other form of government or socioeconomic system. Europe has been diddling itself with this absurd nonsense for nearly a century with ZERO results. When will they learn that government must be the people's servant and not their master?
#6
Green Party legislator Mariko Peters said: We have to close Guantanamo because it symbolizes for me everything that is wrong with this war on terror.
How about you get your lazy Green ass on the frontlines then, Mariko? I feel We need to see that. You're not an American legislator, you're a minority party member of a third-tier country's weak-ass political system. Frankly WE don't care what YOU think.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/28/2007 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"When will they learn that government must be the people's servant and not their master?"
Never, Zen.
For all their elections, Europeans deep-down (or maybe not so deep) still think of themselves as subjects. And subjects have kings masters.
Americans, on the other hand, are citizens.
(As, I believe, are most Australians.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/28/2007 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Have yet to meet an Aussie who was anything other than citizen instead of subject.
#9
"If we are ever forced to rescue Europe from itself one more damn time, we'd best make sure to wipe out every last trace of socialism on the continent."
I'd be happier if you'd wipe out every last trace of socialism in Hillary/Obama 2008 and let Darwin handle Europe.
#10
Western Europeans have used up their 3 strikes in the last century. Again, the US needs to get completely out of western Europe, starting with Germany, and given a wakeup call that Uncle Sugar isn't coming back.
Posted by: ed ||
10/28/2007 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Are you sure that the majority of Americans are willing to do the work necessary to be citizens? We have been moving consistently toward state authority for many years. The TSA is one example. They harass the citizens to avoid offending the bad guys. And the citizens accept it, even though many people don't believe that we are getting better security.
Hillary/Obama and the democrats are examples of the elitist thinking that is so prevalent in the EUSSR. They do think that they know better than the rest of us, and that being elected will give them the right to force the citizens into line with their program, a trend that left unchecked leads to the gulag and the concentration camp.
October 27, 2007: On October 22nd, Osama bin Laden admitted that al Qaeda had lost its war in Iraq. In an audiotape speech titled "Message to the people of Iraq," bin Laden complains of disunity and poor use of resources. He admits that al Qaeda made mistakes, and that all Sunni Arabs must unite to defeat the foreigners and Shia Moslems. What bin Laden is most upset about is the large number of Sunni Arab terrorists who have switched sides in Iraq. This has actually been going on for a while. Tribal leaders and warlords in the west (Anbar province) have been turning on terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda, for several years. While bin Laden appeals for unity, he shows only a superficial appreciation of what is actually going on in Iraq.
Bin Laden doesn't discuss how the Americans defeated him. It was done with data. Years of collecting data on the bad guys paid off. Month by month, the picture of the enemy became clearer. This was literally the case, with some of the intelligence software that created visual representations of what was known of the enemy, and how reliable it was. The picture was clear enough to maneuver key enemy factions into positions that make them easier to run down.
Saddam's henchmen, the main enemy, were no dummies. They were smart enough, and resourceful enough, to build a police state apparatus that kept Saddam in power for over three decades. However, for the last three years, that talent has been applied to keeping the henchmen alive and out of jail. But three years of fighting has reduced the original 100,000 or so core Saddam thugs, to a few thousand diehards. Three years ago, there were hundreds of thousands of allies and supporters from the Sunni minority (then, about five million people, now, less than half that), who wanted to be back in charge. Now the remaining Sunni Arabs just want to be left in peace. Thus the Sunni nationalists of in the Baghdad suburbs are shooting at, and turning in, their old allies from Saddams Baath party and secret police. This isn't easy for some of these guys, but it's seen as a matter of survival. While the fighting in and around Baghdad is officially about rooting out al Qaeda, and hard core terrorists, it's also about taking down the Baath party bankers and organizers who have been sustaining the bombers with cash, information and encouragement. . . .
Bin Laden's latest audio recording brought forth a furious reaction from many of his followers. The main complaint was that only excerpts of the message were being reported on by the Arab media, and that if the entire message were put out there, the excerpts would not appear so damaging. The excerpts concentrated on bin Laden admitting mistakes, criticizing al Qaeda operations in Iraq and urging Islamic radicals to get their act together.
Al Qaeda is under a lot of pressure of late. In addition to defeat in Iraq, the organization is being battered in North Africa, South East Asia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bin Laden has not got any good news to talk about, and that's what's really got his followers angry.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/28/2007 08:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A lot of "experts" have whimpered almost from the start that "we can't beat these networked terrorist organizations," and yet we are. Slice and dice, baby. Slice and dice...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/28/2007 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Three years ago, there were hundreds of thousands of allies and supporters from the Sunni minority (then, about five million people, now, less than half that), who wanted to be back in charge.
Which suggests it was some equivalent of ethnic cleansing, as much as "information", that has resolved the problem.
#3
How do we win in Iraq?
You stay and fight, until there isn't anyone left that wants to fight you. Then you have won. It has taken 5 years and many billions of dollars so far, but I think even the Donk assholes in D.C. know this is happening, that's why they want to change the subject now whenever it comes up.
#4
How many of those civilians executed by (presumably) Shia militia - those thousands of bodies that turned up in dumps, or on the streets in the morning - were actually Saddam's thugs, being dealt with extra-legally, rather than 'simple' sectarian vengeance/cleansing? I have the feeling that although the executioners were often being rather careless about due diligence, the killings were not generally random sectarian murder.
#5
If Iraq becomes an undeniable success in the upcoming election year, then the democrats will claim credit for the turnaround. This will be based on the congress "forcing the president to change course". That is, of course if the democratic-aligned media ever report any successes.
#6
we can't beat these networked terrorist organizations
Wretched had a post on this topic over at Belmont Club just the other day (yeah, I'm to lazy to go find it).
Basically, a terror network is a Small World network which has critical nodes that act as connections to other parts of the network. By deleting these nodes, you can quickly degrade the network. For an example, see Iraq.
#8
Of course the Donks will claim that an Iraqi victory is due to their actions. Even Harry Ried will claim, through some very twisted logic, that it was his 'the war is lost' proclamation which turned the tide.
After all didn't he claim, and the mainstream report as fact, with a straight face that he was in on the Limbaugh letter auction all the time?
The media will gleefully attribute any victories to the Democrats -- and at the same time give none to the military or the men in uniform. Except possibly in campaign slogans.
#9
Basically, a terror network is a Small World network which has critical nodes that act as connections to other parts of the network. By deleting these nodes, you can quickly degrade the network. For an example, see Iraq.
Just one caution: while this has been the network configuration of Al Qaeda, that is evolving in some places. And it doesn't apply to emerging threats such as MS-13, which merge gang activity with increasingly terror-sympathetic activities.
#12
Yup. And where the small worlds model for Al Q breaks down is where they attempt larger actions on a continued basis in some geographical area. Iraq is one such, another is their alliance with the heroin trade.
But WRT individual ops such as 9/11, the model still holds IIUC.
#13
Osama bin quoted outa context. Satan is breaking out his woolies.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
10/28/2007 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#14
COMET HUGHES [THE SIZE OF THE MOON?]??? "BIN LADEN...how the Americans defeated him" - first off, Osama had long ago made it clear he & AL QAEDA/RADICAL ISLAM were not above "using any means necessary" to empower or enable the defeat of the USA-West [Anti-Americanism]; + two, Osama was always IRAN-CENTRIC vv OBLadenian = "Islamic/Islamist Apocalypse" & Islamic end-times beliefs. OSAMA HAS BEEN PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL, DIRECTLY = INDIRECTLY ON THE FORMER, WHILE ON THE LATTER THE USA HAS NOT EVEN INVADED & OCCUPIED IRAN YET vv ISLAMIC/ISLAMIST APOCALYPSE. Again, I believe its premature to belabel Osama $ Spetzlamists as de facto permanently "defeated", including as for in Iraq, espec WHEN OSAMA'S OWN PERSONAL
"ARMAGEDDON/APOCALYPSE" HAS NOT EVEN BEEN FOUGHT OR OCCURRED YET. IMO RADICS WILL LAUNCH A FINAL, LAST "DECISIVE CAMPAIGN/BATTLE" FOR IRAQ BEFORE RECONCENTRATING FOR A PERCEIVED, PRE-PLANNED/
ANTICIPATED? US ATTACK-INVASION ON IRAN. IMO as a loyal, dedic Muslim and Islamist, Osama will not want either Islam nor Radical Islamism associated wid DEFEAT = FAILURE > 'TIS WHY IRAN'S MULLAHS ARE WILLING TO USE NUKES-WMDS ON IRANIAN SOIL AGZ ANY US-ALLIED INVASION, becuz PERFECT ISLAM AS A DIVINE-INSPIRED RELIGION CANNOT LOSE ITS OWN APOCALYPSE/BATTLE OF ARMAGEDDON. Islamic-Islamist "END-TIMES" > The USA must be defeated iff not destroyed in Iran even it means the destruction + self-suicide of the entire Iranian nation = ME Region itself.
Frederick W. Kagan America has won an important battle in the war on terror. We turned an imminent victory for Al Qaeda In Iraq into a humiliating defeat for them and thereby created an opportunity for further progress not only in Iraq, but also in the global struggle. In the past five months, terrorist operations in and around Baghdad have dropped by 59 percent. Car bomb deaths are down by 81 percent. Casualties from enemy attacks dropped 77 percent. And violence during the just-completed season of Ramadan--traditionally a peak of terrorist attacks--was the lowest in three years.
Winning a battle is not the same as winning a war. Our commanders and soldiers are continuing the fight to ensure that al Qaeda does not recover even as they turn their attention to the next battle: against Shia militias sponsored by Iran. Beyond Iraq, battles in Afghanistan and elsewhere demand our attention. But let us properly take stock of what has been accomplished.
At the end of 2006, the United States was headed for defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent leaders proclaimed their imminent triumph. Our own intelligence analysts and commanders agreed that our previous strategies had failed. The notion that a "surge" of a few brigades and a change of mission could transform the security situation in Iraq was ridiculed. Many experts and politicians proclaimed the futility of further military effort in Iraq. Imagine if they had been heeded.
Had al Qaeda been allowed to drive us from Iraq in disgrace, it would control safe havens throughout Anbar, in Baghdad, up the Tigris River valley, in Baquba, and in the "triangle of death." Al Qaeda In Iraq had already proclaimed a puppet state, the Islamic State of Iraq, and was sending money and fighters to the international al Qaeda movement even as it was supplied with foreign suicide bombers and leaders by that movement. The boasts of Osama bin Laden that his movement had defeated the Soviet Union were silly--al Qaeda did not exist when the Soviet Union fell--but they were still a powerful recruiting tool. How much more powerful a tool would have been the actual defeat of the United States, the last remaining superpower, at the hands of Al Qaeda In Iraq? How much more dangerous would have been a terrorist movement with bases in an oil-rich Arab country at the heart of al Qaeda's mythical "Caliphate" than al Qaeda was when based in barren, poverty-stricken Afghanistan, a country where Arabs are seen as untrustworthy outsiders?
Instead, Al Qaeda In Iraq today is broken. Individual al Qaeda cells persist, in steadily shrinking areas of the country, but they can no longer mount the sort of coherent operations across Iraq that had become the norm in 2006. The elimination of key leaders and experts has led to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of the al Qaeda bombings that do occur, hence the steady and dramatic declines in overall casualty rates.
Al Qaeda leaders seem aware of their defeat. General Ray Odierno noted in a recent briefing that some of al Qaeda's foreign leaders have begun to flee Iraq. Documents recovered from a senior Al Qaeda In Iraq leader, Abu Usama al-Tunisi, portray a movement that has lost the initiative and is steadily losing its last places to hide. According to Brigadier General Joseph Anderson, chief of staff for the multinational coalition in Iraq, al-Tunisi wrote that "he is surrounded, communications have been cut, and he is desperate for help."
How did we achieve this success? Before the surge began, American forces in Iraq had attempted to fight al Qaeda primarily with the sort of intelligence-driven, targeted raids that many advocates of immediate withdrawal claim they want to continue. Those efforts failed. Our skilled soldiers captured and killed many al Qaeda leaders, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi, but the terrorists were able to replace them faster than we could kill them. Success came with a new strategy.
Al Qaeda excesses in Anbar Province and elsewhere had already begun to generate local resentment, but those local movements could not advance without our help. The takfiris--as the Iraqis call the sectarian extremists of al Qaeda--brutally murdered and tortured any local Sunni leaders who dared to speak against them, until American troops began to work to clear the terrorist strongholds in Ramadi in late 2006. But there were not enough U.S. forces in Anbar to complete even that task, let alone to protect local populations throughout the province and in the Sunni areas of Iraq. The surge of forces into Anbar and the Baghdad belts allowed American troops to complete the clearing of Ramadi and to clear Falluja and other takfiri strongholds.
The additional troops also allowed American commanders to pursue defeated al Qaeda cells and prevent them from reestablishing safe-havens. The so-called "water balloon effect," in which terrorists were simply squeezed from one area of the country to another, did not occur in 2007 because our commanders finally had the resources to go after the terrorists wherever they fled. After the clearing of the city of Baquba this year, al Qaeda fighters attempted to flee up the Diyala River valley and take refuge in the Hamrin Ridge. Spectacular bombings in small villages in that area, including the massive devastation in the Turkmen village of Amerli, roughly 100 miles north of Baghdad, that killed hundreds, were intended to provide al Qaeda with the terror wedge it needed to gain a foothold in the area. But with American troops in hot pursuit, the terrorists had to stay on the run, breaking their movement into smaller and more disaggregated cells. The addition of more forces, the change in strategy to focus on protecting the population, both Sunni and Shia, and the planning and execution of multiple simultaneous, and sequential operations across the entire theater combined with a shift in attitudes among the Sunni population to revolutionize the situation.
Some now say that, although America's soldiers were successful in this task, the next battle is hopeless. We cannot control the Shia militias, they say. The Iraqis will never "reconcile." The government will not make the decisions it must make to sustain the current progress, and all will collapse. Perhaps. But those who now proclaim the hopelessness of future efforts also ridiculed the possibility of the success we have just achieved. If one predicts failure long enough, one may turn out to be right. But the credibility of the prophets of doom--those who questioned the veracity and integrity of General David Petraeus when he dared to report progress--is at a low ebb.
There is a long struggle ahead in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere against al Qaeda and its allies in extremism. We can still lose. American forces and Afghan allies defeated al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001 as completely as we are defeating it in Iraq. But mistakes and a lack of commitment by both the United States and the NATO forces to whom we handed off responsibility have allowed a resurgence of terrorism in Afghanistan. We must not repeat that mistake in Iraq where the stakes are so much higher. America must not try to pocket the success we have achieved in Iraq and declare a premature and meaningless victory. Instead, let us be heartened by success. We have avoided for the moment a terrible danger and created a dramatic opportunity. Let's seize it.
#1
America wasn't "headed for defeat in Iraq," a year ago. Al Qaeda and other Sunni groups were targeting Shiite groups, and only hitting Americans as a side battle. Although the Surge deterred most Sunni attacks, the most significant aspect of Baghdad security in 2007, was the near cleansing of Sunnis from the north Tigris region. Unfortunately, Shiites took much of the southern part of the city as well, leaving the Sunnis with a narrow corridor from the international airport to the river and the Green Zone. In general, Sunnis retreated and consolidated their positions by forming alliances with US regional commands. I always believed that ethnic cleansing was a solution, and that stability would follow. That occurred, and now, arguably, a majority in Baghdad has turned against the militias, which US troops attack at will and without consequence. Al-Sadr is no longer a power in the Iraq Parliament.
Conditions for stability in Iraq began last October when President Bush promised revisions in tactics, and set field policies up for consultation. In that context, the Iraq intervention ceased to be a State Department exercise, and was turned over to field commanders who know how to pacify belligerents.
#2
How much more powerful a tool would have been the actual defeat of the United States, the last remaining superpower, at the hands of Al Qaeda In Iraq? How much more dangerous would have been a terrorist movement with bases in an oil-rich Arab country at the heart of al Qaeda's mythical "Caliphate" than al Qaeda was when based in barren, poverty-stricken Afghanistan, a country where Arabs are seen as untrustworthy outsiders?
A pair of questions that democrats and liberals dasn't answer even as they spew such treasonous bullshit as "Betray-us". General Petraeus' ROE changes in Iraq seem to have played a critical role in this success. As McZ notes, wresting operational planning out of State's hands was essential to this turn around. How much else of America's foreign dealings will suddenly blossom once they have been extracted from State's withering embrace? Condoleeza Rice's descent into appeasement and ineffectuality appears to be a microcosmic template for the overall situation at State. So much for the East Coast elite's vision of a New World Order.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
10/28/2007 4:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
People won't want to hear it, and it wasn't intentional, but I believe the Democractic Congress had a lot to do with victory in Iraq. Their cut and run comments probalby scared the hell out of the Iraqi's who realized they did not have forever to get things together and were forced to stand up. They should have stood up more, but the timing with the surge helped significanty.
The Vietnamese didn't manage to hear the same message and never stood up, not really. The result was that they suddenly found themselves alone and without even monetary support when they needed it. The lesson. You can depend on the Americans but only for so long, in the end you better depend upon yourself.
#5
The Vietnamese didn't manage to hear the same message and never stood up, not really.
I'm not sure that isn't apples and oranges or fair. The South Vietnamese were doing a fair job of surviving without American troops doing the fighting and did so for 2 years. The donks cut off funding for the ARVN so they hadn't even ammunition to resist the NVA invasion. Given that they wouldn't even get ammunition, what did you expect them to do, Tienamen Square? Sorry, it was a spiteful decision by the donks and one they will have a hard time living down, expecially as they have tried to betray the Iraqis as well.
The South Vietnamese repulse one major offensive from the North, with very limited support in the form of air and ground controllers from the US, after the withdraw of the vast bulk of our forces. They fought the fight. Then the Donks in Congress cut off all effective aid. It was the second major offensive which then overpowered the South Vietnamese who lacked the means. It didn't take long for them to grasp they'd been had. So why fight to the last man? For the tens of thousand of Vietnamese who feed the fish of the South China Sea, it wasn't about will, it was about means. The North Vietnamese had no problem from their suppliers [or abettors].
#7
Here in Orange County California I work every day with people who were standing up, military and civillians, until the U.S. pulled the rug out from underneath them. Kennedy and Kerry and a host of others were eager and ready to bayonet the wounded Viets who were still fighting and doing well enough to have survived. We put the last nail in thier coffin.
#8
Sheesh. I hope RJS's comments don't represent the the next meme in historical revisionism. Harry Reid will be taking credit for the defeat of al Qaeda like he did the $2mm that Rush raised for the Marines.
#9
Also, in Nam, we allowed their military, one based on wealth and position because the perks of leadership were many and profitable, to stay organized. Instead, in Iraq, we rebuilt the military so we could place real leaders in high positions, not profiteers. Anytime corruption is supported by the leadership, the effect on the organization is of weakness and disloyalty. If a SVN unit was a good fighting unit, it was almost by accident.
General Michel Aoun, the former prime minister of Lebanon who is now seeking its presidency, must first denounce his agreement with Hezbollah to be able to move back under the umbrella of the Cedars Revolution. Anything below that is just a tactical dance going no where.
Many recent claims made by the General on Lebanons NBN Television need to be responded to. For example, he said that no one paid the price he and Hezbollah paid for the sovereignty of Lebanon. Yet while the Lebanese people certainly value the sacrifices of the Lebanese soldiers and officers who died or were wounded in the battles against the Syrian occupation army, an agreement with Hezbollah is not a logical step in the same direction, for Hezbollah and the Syrian occupation have had and continue to have a joint war room.
Aoun claimed the United States was against him and that it was meddling in the way the Lebanese ought to elect their president. Perhaps General Aoun doesn't understand what drives Washington in Lebanon and worldwide: it is the war on terror. America will not support any president, elected either with two thirds or with just 51%, if he or she has an agreement with an organization on the U.S. terror list. And if the Parliament elects a president committed to the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 and the campaign against terror, he or she will be supported regardless of the constitutional process.
The general also said he has the support of the people, but that support was given based on a program that was negated by the general. So after the agreement with Hezbollah, Michel Aoun doesn't have a mandate from the voters, and any non-democratic action against a president elected by simple majority will be considered as a coup not the other way around.
#2
During the Vietnam War, the Young Americans For Freedom challenged the street tactics of the Students for a Democratic Society. The YAF were led by articulate opponents of Communist expansionism. They never allied with fascist and racist groups. I applaud the rare scrutiny of Islam, but condemn the integration with the racist and fascist right.
Lately Euros have been trying to form a pan-European mass movement against Islamization. They are failing, and we are failing too. But, we have to succeed, somehow.
#3
There are two possible futures: In one, patriots defend liberty against the cult. In another, patriots fail, bicker among themselves and the people turn to the Nazis to defend them. That way leads to the greatest genocide in history.
#4
"But, we have to succeed, somehow" Here's a simple framework: when the utterance of the word "infidel" is treated with the same opprobrium that the utterance of n*gger or k*ke is, we're getting there. When any advocate of sharia is treated to the same opprobrium that advocates of apartheid, sexual abuse of women or child molesting are treated to, we're getting there...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/28/2007 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Or a flick of the middle index finger at university administrations after Columbia. Done in order to point out the bankrupt duplicitous standards of neo-communist 'diversity'. It does attract short time attention usually without the intended consequences. Of course a splodie does that in market places in Baghdad and doesn't get a lot coverage these days either.
#7
B, I think you are missing my point. It is those on the left who blanch at things like apartheid and racist utterances who must get on board here. When lefties stop shilling for islam and sharia, we will be getting somewhere...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/28/2007 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
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.
America has won an important battle in the war on terror. We turned an imminent victory for Al Qaeda In Iraq into a humiliating defeat for them and thereby created an opportunity for further progress not only in Iraq, but also in the global struggle. In the past five months, terrorist operations in and around Baghdad have dropped by 59 percent. Car bomb deaths are down by 81 percent. Casualties from enemy attacks dropped 77 percent. And violence during the just-completed season of Ramadan--traditionally a peak of terrorist attacks--was the lowest in three years. 
