Freedom's Truth

I've been occupied with buying and selling a home and so will be unable to blog for the time being. We are handling mortgage brokers, real estate agents, builders, while at the same time fixing our current home to get it ready to sell. Indeed, I am typing now through paint-encrusted hands. So while we are going through the many details of buying one house and selling the one we've got, I'll be out of pocket, speaking the language of .... 2870 Sq ft in Austin, TX, grt neighborhood, walk to neighborhood pool, oversized greenbelt lot with oaks, fig and pecan trees, 5 BR/3BA/3 living/2 dining areas/2 car garage, updates throughout, $287,000 ... at least until it sells. :-)

Happy New Year.

Reuters in their daily toil and trouble report mentions 2 significant finds. No, not the New York Times' latest attempt to make cracks in the Iraqi and U.S. relationship. No, the finds are more evidence of the Syrian connection to the terrorist groups.

First, proof that insurgents are getting training - in Syria:

Police in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf said they were making progress in catching those responsible for the bombing last week that killed 52 people. Along with a bomb that killed 14 in nearby Kerbala, it was seen as an attempt to spark sectarian conflict in the run-up to the election. Police chief Ghalib al-Jazairi said one man in detention had confessed to attending a guerrilla training camp in Syria. Iraq accuses Syrian intelligence of aiding former Saddam loyalists and Islamist groups in Iraq. Another man had been arrested who had filmed the scene before and after the bombing.

Police had also found a house where explosives, apparently for making car bombs, had been stored, Jazairi said.

Second, assassinations targetting directly those politicians who are exposing the Syrian connect and standing up for Democracy in Iraq:

Some violence is aimed directly at those publicly linked to the Sunday, one of the 100-odd parties running next month said a senior member had been assassinated.

"We have lost today a hero killed by terrorists. Mohammed Abd Al-Hussein was a member of the DPIN's leadership and most of all a friend with a brave heart. He lived his life to protect the innocent and to fight for democracy and peace in Iraq," the Democratic Party of the Iraqi Nation said in a statement.

It said he received death threats after a demonstration at the Syrian embassy which accused Damascus of aiding insurgents.

Now why would insurgents be particularly incensed at a democratic politician tying the terrorists to Syria? I am reminded of Katherin Hephurn's comment: "You can say anything you want about me, as long as it isn't true."

Rumsfeld visits the troops in Iraq to thank them and boost morale, and the soldiers grill him on ... the biased media:

"How do we win the war in the media?" asked one soldier in Mosul.

Not sure how to do that... AFP billed Rumsfeld comments as painting a picture of a 'bleak' Iraq, although Rumsfeld said: "It is very important for us to see that the sacrifices and efforts of the last two years should start bearing fruit and harvest in Iraq and the free world. We want to think big," Rumsfeld said before his closed-door talks with Yawar. "The situation is tough but there is no doubt in my mind that we will succeed. It's just a matter of time."

UPDATE 12/26: Via Free Republic, the American Army Captain behind the 2Slick blog has an interview on RealMedia:

An American officer who fought his way into Iraq in 2003, during his first tour of duty is now serving his second tour of duty in Kuwait. Known to netizens as Captain 2Slick, he spends his days fighting the war and his nights fighting the injustices of the American media on his war blog 2slick.blogspot.com. In this interview, he unravels the agenda-driven spin of the American media, many of who seem to view their blatant mismanagement of the war news as means to an end. The collateral damage that their efforts are causing is deadly to our war fighters and to our chances of achieving victory. Yet, what is truly history making about this interview is that it is unfiltered and direct.

US Army Captain Rick aka 2Slick says: "Our Enemies are Using the (American) Media Against Us"

Says Prime Minister Allawi, laying out the programs for his "al-Iraqiya" slate and pointing to the progress of the interim Government in preparing for elections and improving the economy:

Ballots will prove far more powerful than bullets in the end, and the will of the peaceful majority of Iraqis will triumph over the terror tactics of a hateful few.

In going through old papers I found an Interesting Article is about how Syriac Christians met the challenge of Islam in the 8th and 9th centuries. A few things struck me as supporting my earlier comments about the pressure put on Christians to convert to Islam of suffer the fate of 2nd class members of society or worse. (This is called Dhimmitude by Bat Ye'or.) A story about an occupied people, under a burden of oppression, having to register at their place of birth - kind of like the Gospel nativity accounts.

History is subject to as much polemics as the report of the news of yesterday; it is said that "History is the polemic of the victor." The Syriac Christian point of view is a neglected one:

Although Islam was born, and became a world religion largely within the ambience of the Syriac-speaking communities of the eastern Christian patriarchates, little study has in fact been focused on the significance of Syriac culture in the early formation of Islam, or on the shaping influence of the academic and literary institutions of the Syriac-speaking churches on the early efflorescence of Islamic culture, particularly in Syria and Iraq. It is almost as if the scholarly world has accepted the apologetic claims of Muslim writers in the eighth and ninth centuries that in the somewhat remote world of the Hijãz in the prophet Muhammad's day there was only ignorance (al-jãhiliyyah) and the worship of idols until the fateful moment when the angel Gabriel brought the earliest lines of the Qurcãn down from heaven to an ecstatic Muhammad.1 Of course, both the Qurcãn itself, and modern Islamicists, admit the presence of Jews and Christians in the world in which Islam was born. And there have been a few venturesome studies into what one writer called "the foreign vocabulary of the Qurcãn,"2 along with several more quixotic proposals about the Christian or the Jewish/Samaritan, or even the Manichee origins of early Islam.3 But for the most part there has been a scholarly silence in modern times about the broader religio-cultural matrix from which Muhammad and Islam emerged, and especially about that part of it which involves the Aramean heritage of the Syriac-speaking peoples.

This perspective can tell us much about the true origins of Islam. It presented a challenge both theologically and a challenge to the community. The author notes that

"In no way can one find in their chronicles any evidence for the thesis sometimes advanced by modern scholars that the Syriac-speaking Christians welcomed the Arab invasion and the Islamic conquest as a liberation from the oppressive fiscal and theological policies of Byzantine rule."

In other words, the pro-Islamic view of polemic historians like Karen Armstrong is eyewash, or a white-wash. Rather, what the Syriac sources show is that from around 700 AD on, heavier burdens were imposed upon the communities to convert:

Aside from the occasional, brief allusion,5 notice of the rise and religious challenge of Islam does not for the most part appear in Christian texts, be they Greek, Syriac, or Arabic, much before the early years of the eighth century. By this time, of course, the Arab conquest was long over and the first surge of creative energy was underway. The reign of the caliph cAbd al-Malik (685-705) signifies the inception of the new order. Indeed one Syriac chronicler of later times cites the reign of this caliph as the time of the beginning of what he calls the "Egyptian servitude" of his people. He says of cAbd al-Malik:

He published a severe edict ordering each man to go to his own country, to his village of origin, to inscribe there in a register his name, that of his father, his vineyards, olive trees, goods, children and all that he possessed. Such was the origin of the tribute of capitation and of all the evils that spread over the Christians. Until then the kings took tribute from land but not from men. Since then the children of Hagar began to impose Egyptian servitude on the sons of Aram.6

Such pressures and indignities were an inducement to conversion:

As Umayyad power gave way to the confident, new Abbasid dynasty in the mid-eighth century the conditions were already well in place for the full political and social consolidation of the new Islamic commonwealth.8 For the socially upwardly mobile elements in the subject Christian communities the pressure to convert to Islam thereafter became overwhelming. By the ninth century the rush of conversions was in its first phase of enthusiasm.9 An anonymous Syriac chronicler from Tûr cAbdîn, who completed his narrative somewhere around the year 775, offers this comment on the behavior of some of his contemporaries. He says,

The gates were opened to them to [enter] Islam. . . . Without blows or tortures they slipped towards apostasy in great precipitancy; they formed groups of ten or twenty or thirty or a hundred or two hundred or three hundred without any sort of compulsion . . ., going down to Harrãn and becoming Moslems in the presence of [government] officials. A great crowd did so . . . from the districts of Edessa and of Harrãn and of Tella and of Resaina.10

We are told in the West that we learned much from Islam. That is true. The Christian West in 11th and 12th centuries was winning back Spain for Christendom and finding marvelous libraries in places like Toledo, Spain, with texts never before known to Western medeival scholars. It was such a find of Aristotle's books that led to the greatness of St Thomas Aquinas, who wove the empiricism of Aristotle with the Scholasticism of previous theologians to develop his Summa Theologica and other works.

But where did Arab Muslim scholars get those Greek texts? Arabic was not even a written language before the time of Muhammed and according to Hadith, Muhammed himself was not literate and his preaching was transmitted orally and recorded only later. The texts were transmitted to the Arabic Caliphate via Syriac scholars, who in turn had them from the Byzantine Empire, the link back to Greco-Roman civilization:

Translation of Greek knowledge to Arabic by Syriac (Phoenician) Christians was the corner stone in civilizing the Arabs and jump-starting their contribution to Western thought.

The book reviewed in the article mentions:

When Baghdad was founded in 762 the khalif and his court became near neighbors of Jundi-Shapur, and before long court appointments with generous emoluments began to draw Nestorian physicians and teachers from the academy, and in this Harun ar-Rashid's minister Ja'far Ibn Barmak was a leading agent, doing all in his power to introduce Greek science amongst the subjects of the Khalif, Arabs, and Persians. His strongly pro-Greek attitude seems to have been derived from Marw, where his family had settled after removing from Balkh, and in his efforts he was ably assisted by Jipa'il of the Bukhtyishu' family [a famous Assyrian family which produced nine generations of physicians] and his successors from Jundi-Shapur. Thus the Nestorian heritage of Greek scholarship passed from Edessa and Nisibis, through Jundi-Shapur, to Baghdad. [page 72].

There are many examples of the great scientists of the following century, a time when Islam was the zenith of civilizations in the world. For example, this Islamic science article mentions one of the great Arabic finds - Euclid's Elements:

Al-Hajjaj ihn Yusuf ibn Matar. Flourished some time between 786 and 833. probably in Baghdad. The first translator of Eucelid's "Elements" into Arabic and one ef the first translators of the "Almagest." kitab al-mijisti, hence our word almagest). Al-Hajjaj's translation of the Almagest was made in 829-8.90 on the basis of a Syriac version (by Sergios of Resaina'' (first half of sixth century). A later adaptation of the Almagest was made by Abu-l-Wafa' (second half of tenth century) . He twice translated the "Elements'' of Euclid, first under Harun al-Rashid then again under al-Ma'mun. ...

Some idea of Muslim views on minerals may be obtained in the so called "Lapidary" of Aristotle. That compilation is probably of Syriac and Persian origin, and one may tentatively place the Arabic version in the first half of the ninth century. 'Utarid's lapidary, the earliest work of its kind in Arabic, dates probably from the same time.

...

Some of the prominent scientists of the 9th century in the Arab caliphate were Christians or literate in Syriac. From the same Islamic science article:

Ibn Sahda: Flourished at al-Karkh (a suburb of Baghdad), probably about the beginning of the ninth century. Translator of medical works from Greek into Syriac and Arabic. According to the Fihrist he translated some works of Hippocrates into Arabic. According to Hunain ibn Ishaq, he translated the "De sectis" and the "De pulsibus ad tirones" of Galen into Syriac.

Jabril Ibn Bakhtyshu: Grandson of Jirjis ibn JibriI, q. v., second half of eighth century; physician to Ja'far the Barmakide, then in 805-6 to Harun al-Rashid and later to al-Ma'mun; died in 828-29; buried in the monastery of St. Sergios in Madain (Ctesiphon). Christian (Nestorian) physician, who wrote various medical works and exerted much influence upon the progress of science in Baghdad. He was the most prominent member of the famous Bakhtyashu' family. He took pains to obtain Greek medical manuscripts and patronized the translators.

Ibn Masawaih: Latin name: Mesue, or, more specifically, Mesue Major; Mesue the Elder. Abu Zakariya Yuhanna ibn Masawaih (or Msuya). Son of a pharmacist in Jundishapur; came to Baghdad and studied under Jibrll ibn Bakhtyashu'; died in Samarra in 857. Christian physician writing in Syriac and Arabic. Teacher of Hunain ibn Ishaq. His own medical writings were in Arabic, but he translated various Greek medical works into Syriac. Apes were supplied to him for dissection by the caliph al-Mu'tasim c. 836. Many anatomical and medical writings are credited to him, notably the "Disorder of the Eye" ("Daghal al-ain"), which is the earliest Systematic treatise on ophthalmology extant in Arabic and the Aphorisms, the Latin translation of which was very popular in the Middle Ages.

The author notes: "out of the eight physicians whom G. Sarton mentioned as the most important, six were Christians, most probably Nistorians. Of the two remaining, one was a true Arab, the other a Persian. A great part of the activity of these men was devoted to translating Greek medical texts, especially those of Hippocrates and Galen, into Syriac and into Arabic. All of these translators were Christians..."

The list goes on. Where was this knowledge transmitted? At the capital of the Abbasid Empire, Baghdad. Some gloss over the Christian/Syriac contribution and make the Islamic/Arab contribution seem original. But Arab Christian Literature article points out:

One fact stands out: Syriac speaking Christians contributed more than any other people to this general cultural awakening and intellectual renaissance in Abbasid Baghdad. Syrian Christians had already been translating Greek works into Syriac. While Arabians did not know Greek thought, Syrians had been in contact with the Greek world for over a millennium. As Philip Hitti expresses it:

Between 750 and 850 A.D. the Arab world was the scene of one of the most spectacular and momentous movements in the history of thought. The movement was marked by translations into Arabic from Persian, Greek, and Syriac. The Arabian Muslim brought with him no art, science, or philosophy and hardly any literature; but he did bring along from the desert a keen intellectual curiosity, a voracious appetite for learning and a number of latent talents. In the Fertile Crescent he fell heir to Hellenistic science and lore, which was unquestionably the most precious intellectual treasure at hand. In a few decades after the foundation of Baghdad (762 A.D.) the Arabic-reading public found at its disposal the major philosophical works of Aristotle and the Neo-Platonic commentators, the chief medical writings of Hippocrates and Galen, the main mathematical compositions of Euclid and the geographical masterpiece of Ptolemy. In all this the Syrians were the mediators.... For two centuries before the appearance of Islam Syrian scholars had been translating Greek works into Syriac.

Long before Umar II transferred the philosophical school of Alexandria to Antioch an intense wave of translation had swept the monasteries of the Syrian Church. The people who had opened the treasures of Greek science and philosophy to the Persians were now doing the same to the Arabs. The same people who before Islam were instrumental in cultivating the main elements of Greek culture, spreading them eastward and propagating them in the schools of Edessa and Nisibis, Harran and Jundi-Shapur were now busily engaged in passing those elements on to the Arab-reading world. (See Philip Hitti, History of Syria, pp. 548-550)

Edessa now is Urfa, in southwestern Turkey. Nisibis is near the Tigris in northern Iraq; what once was Assyrian lands, then Christian Syrian; Jundi-Shapur, in western Iran near Baghdad (although I've yet to find a map to locate it). These Syriac Christians had churches and monasteries throughout this region, in the ancient cities like Tikrit.

So this hardy band were a crucial link in the chain of transmitting civilization, keeping the lights on during the "Dark Ages" that descended upon Europe in the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the decline of Eastern Roman empire. The ancients texts were transmitted from Greek to Syriac to Arabic then back to greek by the middle-ages scholars.

These "Syriac Christians who Saved Civilization" are forgotten by some historical accounts, but the people live on as a tiny minority in the cradle of civilization, including in present-day Iraq.

AND NOW, as Paul Harvey would say, you know the rest of the story.

Good Will To You & Peace on Earth.

Don't you hate it when your browser explodes at the wrong time? I had written many pithy comments about Juan Cole's McCarthyite charges against the "Iraq the Model" bloggers, and Iraq the Model's defense. Apparently, Dr Cole thinks you have to be in the pay of the U.S. Government to express gratitude to American intevention and pro-democracy views. There seems to be more tolerance for terrorists than for Bush supporters amongst the dark corners of the Left.

Anyway, the browser exploded, so my essay is kaput. But just google "Venona" if you want to know the punchline: McCarthy was right; there were Soviet spies in the U.S. Government. Leftist like Dr Cole now practice what they accused falsely an old enemy of doing - using phony guilt-by-association charges.

Side Note: I am light-blogging, due to holidays and a house move. So I've not been on top of the latest news like Command Post has - Blair visits Baghdad, French hostages are released, and deadly Mosul attack.

In the wake of it USA Today calls for a reality check. "Resolving the mess in Iraq requires the administration to be both resolute and realistic." Fair enough, and fair to question progress on training up Iraqi security forces. The reality is we have a despicable enemy who murders whomever for an agenda that is little more than a call for bloodshed. This attack of terrorism killed soldiers, civilians, Iraqis and Americans:

The dead included 18 Americans — 14 service members and four U.S. civilian contractors — and four Iraqis, the U.S. military command in Baghdad said Wednesday. Of the 72 wounded, 51 are U.S. military personnel and the remainder are American civilians, Iraqi troops, and other foreigners.

The terrorism is looking more and more like the Palestinian Hamas-style terror attacks. It was assumed to be a rocket attack early on, but probably was a suicide bombing attack (like the attacks that Hamas used to kill Israeli teenagers in discos and pizza parlors):

Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, told CNN that a planted bomb was "a possibility." A radical Sunni group, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, said it carried out the attack and claimed it was a "martyrdom operation" — a reference to a suicide bomber.

The explosive was apparently packed with pellets the size of BBs that ripped across the tent when it exploded, Brig. Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of Task Force Olympia — the main U.S. force in nothern Iraq — told Nemitz.

Mortars and rockets produce shrapnel but are not packed with pellets, which are often found in roadside bombs or explosives worn by suicide bombers.

Why go this route? For the terrorists, because it 'works'.

More helpful realism would point out Fragmented leadership of the Iraqi insurgency, how much we know about them, how much the insurgency is the 'shadow Government' of the Saddam loyalists spreading violence, and how effective they have been at 'winning through intimidation'. Then we can work from there:

Mosul was relatively stable until April and May of 2004, when former top Baath Party officials held a summit in the Syrian town of Al Hasaka. At that meeting, according to intelligence sources, the party reorganized itself, expelling anyone who had flirted with the US, international aid groups, or the Iraqi Governing Council.

By some estimates, they kicked out half the membership, paring it down to a trusted core of diehard party cadres, headed by Saddam Hussein's family members and former high-ranking Baath officials. Mosul was the natural meeting place for the newly resurgent Baath Party. The former headquarters of the Iraqi Army Fifth Corps, it was still full of former solders and officers.

According to intelligence sources, the new leaders are Mohammed Younis al-Ahmad, a former top aide to Hussein, and Ibrahim Sabawi, Hussein's half-brother and former security director. The US is offering a $1 million reward for information leading to Mr. Al-Ahmad.

Because Mosul was taken over without any fighting in the original US invasion in 2003, the Baath Party structure was preserved intact. After the war, insurgents were able to meld with the old Baath institutions. "The insurgents are using the infrastructure of the old Iraqi army," says Mr. Pire. "They used the forests for training and hiding themselves, on both sides of the Tigris.... They have a good base of support inside Mosul."

When asked if Zarqawi was ever in Mosul, Pire laughs. "Zarqawi exists?" he says, raising his eyebrows teasingly. Then he becomes serious. "He's in the Qaim area - even, sometimes, Hatra, or Biaj," he says, naming several Iraqi cities south of Mosul. "And he is in Mosul sometimes."

When asked why he doesn't capture Zarqawi in or around Mosul, Pire says there is one key reason: Because insurgent networks have such good intelligence that Zarqawi or his followers, would hear about any such plan beforehand. "The point of strength of the terrorist is information," he says. "They have exact information. They have people in every office, every department - police, Iraqi National Guard, Health Ministry, education, electricity, and municipality. And the people cooperate with them - sometimes willingly, sometimes not."

The insurgency today is the aftermath of the 'catastrophic success' of the 3 week drive to Baghdad, that left the Batthists neither dead nor surrendering, but simply 'gone to ground'. Because of Syrian safe havens, Baathist money, and Arabist propoganda, it survives.

There are two choices in such cases - destroy or co-opt. The U.S. military has done both in places. We've mentioned the Colonel who got the Saddam army officers signed up as a consulting board to 'bring in' potential enemies; and we've had sweeps. But the insurgency survives because neither avenue has worked fully; terrorists remain at large, and Sunnis who might be induced to work with us are either encouraged or intimidated in the other direction. Moreover, as the article cited earlier points out, the cells of the organization are fairly small and dispersed; the actions taken, either suicide bombings, assassinations, roadside bombs, mortar attacks, mostly are small-team acts of violence.

The ultimate one-two punch to both co-opt and destroy is Iraqi security and better intelligence. The intelligence is needed to defeat the enemy tactically and destroy it cell by cell. Iraqi forces would defeat the enemy strategically, by exposing the thin layer of propaganda about 'resistance' as hollow. This is resistance to democracy, not the U.S. To defeat it at the strategic level, we must also call it what it is: Terrorism, because terrorism only 'works' long-term when people pretend there is legitimacy behind such wanton violence.

No words can express ... The terrorists want to kill Iraqi democracy. Reuters says: "A gunman, left, shoots and kills a man lying in Baghdad's Haifa Street after being pulled from a car Sunday, Dec. 19, 2004. The man at right on his knees was executed moments later, along with another man not shown in picture. About 30 militants hurling hand grenades and firing machine guns attacked a car carrying five people employed by the commission's Baghdad office and tried 'to drag them out,' said Adel al-Lami, a member of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq." Three were killed, and two escaped.

Iraq security forces seize rockets smuggled from abroad says PM Allawi.

“We captured (the rockets) at the beginning of this week. They were supposed to be fired by remote control. They were directed at election centers,” Allawi told the Baghdad’s Iraqiya television network in a live interview.

I am reading the news and run across "A bomb ripped through a Shiite mosque"... The news of today from Iraq? No, June 1, 2004, in Karachi, Pakistan. I've been rifling through old newspapers that I was throwing out (an interesting way to look back on the year), and found that item. That day, 16 people were killed in the Karachi mosque blast, said to be retaliation by Sunni militants for the killing of a Sunni cleric. Story says, "Karachi has been the scene of recent sectarian violence and terrorist attacks, including a May 7 bombing that killed 20 people." The violence is fuled by Jihadist militants. In other news that day, the Saudis were unable to explain how 3 gunmen escaped after a standoff.

Belmont Club covers the context around the bombings in Iraq. The terrorists sink to any level to sow seeds of violence, and they are trying to engineer a Shiite-Sunni civil war:

Shi'ite leaders accuse Sunni Muslim militants of carrying out the attacks. The Shi'ites suspect militants known as Salafists or Wahabis, and former ruling Baath Party members, of seeking to draw Shi'ites into a violence cycle that would spark a civil war and prevent the coming elections from taking place. Wahabis are blamed by Shi'ites for killing scores of clerics and ordinary Shi'ites in Dora, a mixed area in Baghdad, and Latifiya, just south of the capital, in recent months. According to Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, one of Iraq's most respected Shi'ite clerics "[Wahabi militants] are trying to ignite a sectarian civil war and prevent elections from going ahead on time. They have failed before and they will fail again."

Failed to ignite a civil war, yes, but not for lack of trying. Two car bombs, one in Karbela and one in Najaf, killed 60 and injured many more, and a daylight killing of election workers on a Baghdad street. The Shiite response has been consistent, to avoid getting baited into sectarian violence. DoD points out that the car bomb creates the illusion of a strong insurgency, when in fact, such typres terrorism does not indicate (nor require) support among the people.

The insurgency has one supporter, and the elections have an opponent:

Saddam said the elections "aimed at splitting Iraq into sectarian and religious divisions and weakening the (Arab) nation," said Bushra Khalil, another member of the defense team.

Never mind the irony of a genocidal maniac guilty of ethnic cleansing preaching against 'sectarian divisions' - the statement is as clear as a confession of guilt. Just as his henchmen are trying to ignite such violence with terrorism, he shows the political hand they are playing: Create a civil war, blame the U.S. for it, and ride the way of pan-Arabism to return to the good old days of Baathists in charge.

In this report from Kurdistan, it is explained how it's done by them. The autonomous 3 provinces under Kurdish governance have been peaceful because they were not governed by the Baathists; the Kurdish authorities have had a continuing governing presence since 1992. The security forces didn't have to get rebuilt from the ground up. So, with just a few counterexamples, the region has been free of violence.

If one is to put one's finger on the single most important element in the insurgency, it is the fact that enough of the 'henchmen', the middle-managers if you will of Saddam's baathist regime, took part in the insurgency. Where Saddam's cronies are strongest, i.e., the Sunni triangle, the insurgency took hold. It is strongest in 3 particular provinces of Iraq's 18 provinces. The second most important fact of the insurgency is that it is supported by so few Iraqis (even those who may have a criticism or opposition to U.S. in Iraq.) This 'insurgency' succeeds as terrorism, but continues to fail to achieve any objectives beyond bloodshed. So in the end, the terrorist blasts in Iraq were not sectarian violence at all, but just violence. Saddam was an equal-opportunity killer, and the terrorists too are following his example.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, I am a fan of Don Rumsfeld. So, for fellow Rummy fans ... Rumsfeld's Greatest Quotes.

If you think the media coverage is biased to the point of dishonesty, You are not alone:

A new Gallup survey is rather disquieting for those of us in the media. It finds that not even a quarter of Americans perceive either television or newspaper reporters to have "very high" or "high" standards of ethics and honesty.

This is a good column on the blatant agenda-driven journalism in Iraq war coverage.

Another powerful retort, from an Iraqi War veteran defending military actions on armor for the troops is: What the Media Got Wrong about Spc. Wilson and Secretary Rumsfeld. This GI lays out the case that in war, you adapt to the situation, and that the DoD is doing a very effective job of adapting with regards to up-armoring Humvees where they are needed. Once again, we see this irony, which was exposed in the previous post as well: Those voices claiming that Rumsfeld needs to listen to his troops are themselves not listening to what the GIs who have served there are saying!

I am frankly disappointed that the press has not let up after the election. They are letting go of Bush, but not the administration team. Why this huge media blowup over an issue that is being properly addressed already? Going after 'weakened' members of a disfavored administration happens due to the 'wounded zebra' phenomenon. Just like in the nature shows, the predatory pack of wolves in the media/DC/political complex will attack the perceived weakened team member, because it's easier to be successful and because if you are just piling on, there is less chance of counterattack. It's their way to 'thin the herd' of conservatives/Republicans and enemies/jerks-who-don't-return-your-calls. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

For the handwringing anti-Iraq-war media and political players, using the armor non-issue as a cudgel against Rumsfeld is transparent. President Bush is onto their game and has never flinched. On the other hand, we are getting a "RINO" stampede started now, with Sen Collins and Coleman getting quoted. And it seems strange Senator Lott isn't clued in to this 'wounded zebra' phenomemon enough to avoid shooting off his mouth. Et tu, former majority leader?

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise."

Hat Tips to Free Republic, NewsMax and Hannity; the right-wing media has a few points to make on McBagel and Media versus Rumsfeld in Iraq Vet: McCain Snubbed the Troops:

Identified only by his first name, Iraq GI Dan described the McCain visit during an unsolicited call to Sean Hannity's ABC Radio Network broadcast - saying he was upset that the Arizona Republican was accusing Rumsfeld of being oblivious to the concerns of troops on the ground. "I had to let you know about this because I really don't think too many people know," the GI caller told Hannity. "McCain comes over and we do this whole big reception thing. It's 140-something degrees out. Soldiers are standing at attention outside, waiting for this guy to come."

The Iraq vet said that when McCain finally arrived, he "[didn't] say a single word to any of the soldiers." Instead, said GI Dan, McCain spent "about five minutes at our safehouse there. And then he leaves - he didn't talk to a single soldier that was actually there . . . He didn't ask a single one of us anything."

The Iraq GI said it's much different when Rumsfeld visits Iraq. "Every time [he] has gone over there - whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever - he's always made a point of talking to as many soldiers as he can; from a private, a low-ranking soldier, all the way up [the chain of command]."

NR on the latest "McBagel Moment". Just to make it perfectly clear, they point out: “The agenda of most of Rumsfeld’s critics is clear: to wound the administration and discredit the war effort.”

Ollie North has a Heroic War Story about Sgt Peralta's last act of heroism:

As the firefight raged on, a "yellow, foreign-made, oval-shaped grenade," as Lance Corporal Travis Kaemmerer described it, rolled into the room where they were all standing and came to a stop near Peralta's body. But Sgt. Rafael Peralta wasn't dead - yet. This young immigrant of 25 years, who enlisted in the Marines when he received his green card, who volunteered for the front line duty in Fallujah, had one last act of heroism in him.

What would you do in such a situation? I don't know if I could summon the courage and selflessness to instantly do what this man did. But I thank God there are men like Sgt Peralta who are like this, protecting our country.

LGF also posted this story, and as usual the subtext is the media is ignoring daily acts of heroism and emphasizing the negative; LGF even has a Kos quote, not worth repeating, that is high-toxicity anti-American-military.

Has anyone connected the dots on the money trail? If not, let me be the first:

Iraqi Militants kill aid worker, in this case an Italian named Santoro.

Baathists, formerly in Saddam's regime fund insurgents from Syria

"We have fairly good information that there are senior former Baathists, members of what they call the 'New Regional Command,' operating out of Syria with impunity, and providing direction and financing to the insurgency in Iraq,"

UN s oil-for-food funded Saddam's war chest

President Bush called for a "full and open" accounting of Iraq's now-defunct oil-for-food program following accusations Iraqi President Saddam Hussein illegally reaped billions of dollars from it because of Annan's lack of oversight.

Conclusion: UN oil-for-food program money is funding and underwriting terrorist murders of aid workers in Iraq. Certainly this puts the idea that this is merely a financial corruption scandal (albeit the biggest in history) in a new light.

in the GWOT when Arabs understand the situation as we do, as a fight between modern freedom and discredited tyranny and terrorism. A Kuwaiti editor declares: America Will Not Retreat and says: 'Arab Regimes Must Understand the U.S. Administration Supports The Freedom and Rights of the Arabs'. A very encouraging article; the scales are falling from their eyes, the world is changing, and their perceptions must change as well. The ice is breaking.

I got a comment noting my optimism on matters; I consider such optimism realistic, more realistic than the doom-n-gloom that predict 9 out of every 2 disasters that happen. Media-hyped pessimism is almost always wrong because Most fearmongering is bunk.

Becasue it was law, that's why S.2401, Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, SEC. 112. "The procurement of up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles at a rate up to 450 such vehicles each month."

"As soon as we have efficient security forces that we can depend on, we can see the beginning of the withdrawal of forces from our friends and partners. And I think it doesn't take years, it will take months." So said Yawer in a BBC interview, in which he criticized Syria and Iran for interfering in Iraqi affairs.

But the media did it again, putting the worst possible spin on comments from an Iraqi leader. The AP headline was: Iraqi Leader Criticizes U.S.-Led Coalition . And what was the great criticism? "Definitely dissolving the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior was a big mistake at that time," al-Yawer told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. So he points out a controversial decision made in May 2003 and criticized by a number of other people since, from the UN envoy to US politicians. Indeed, this criticism is no worse than Russert can get out of McBagel (Biden, McCain, Hagel) on any given Sunday.

The key point is that President al-Yawer can be correct on this point, while at the same time 100% supporting the coalition's goals and efforts to remake Iraq into a sovereign, free and democratic nation. History will likely record a number of mistakes made by the U.S. in the process of liberating Iraq; I've been unsure if the disbanding of the army was a big mistake, since not doing it would have left the baathists embedded in the security forces. But Yawer makes a good point, in 20/20 hindsight, excluding security officers on an individual basis would have been less disruptive than the sudden disbanding of the whole organization. Was Bremer aware of the consequences? Would he have done differently if he knew a serious insurgency was lurking around the corner?

Yet, a discussion of an 18month-old decision - long since dissected many times and patially reversed 6 months back - seems besides the point in the runup to elections, so why did the media make that their headline? Yawer has expressed his support and gratitude for the effort during his visit to the U.S. recently. This was not reported as widely. Emphasizing the negative is a media preoccupation when it comes to Iraq.

UPDATE (10 minutes later): Right on cue, like they read my mind, here comes another McBagel moment. Who says the news isn't reliable?

Via BuzzMachine, Iraq the Model's Omar and Mohammed in America

blog-browsing tonight, hit the gamut of topics all the way to the root of all questions: God and Morality. More like those here. Ah, time for bed.

This blog called "The Iraq war is wrong" gets a nomination as a best of blog, and I have just one question: Is it real or is it Satire? It took me a while to 'get it'. This was a comment made: "kinda like a train wreck that you can't tear your gaze away from."

Night and day. That's the difference between MSM reporting and the comments of soldiers who were there at Rumsfeld's town hall meeting in Kuwait.

The Rumsfeld 'armor issue' that the MSM concocted out of a soldier's question (one fed to him by a reporter), is the subject of an editorial in today's Austin American Statesman. There annoying editorial says things like "defense department spinners noted that a newspaper reporter planted the Wilson question". Well, the reporter himself crowed about it. (And BTW, if the story was fed by the reporter, it begs a question - was the soldier really hunting in 'landfills'?) The say "The troops in Kuwait .. cheered lustily when Wilson asked it." They also cheered about 11 other times when Rumsfeld spoke, a fact not noted by the newpaper. DoD has weighed in to point out the real situation on the armor:

Back in August of 2003, we were producing about 30 of those vehicles a month. We're in the category now of over 400 per month being produced. It took time to ramp up that production and great cooperation, the right amount of funding to do it. And so we've built ourselves up to that kind of capacity. And we've provided a little under 6,000 up-armored humvees to the force to date. ...The second thing we did was to look at add-on kits that we might be able to produce that gave that vehicle additional protection. We call that level-two armor, ... But we've got 10 sites here in the theater, a couple here in Kuwait, and eight sites up in Iraq itself where we can bolt on, add this armor to existing unarmored vehicles.

Simultaneously, we looked at a stop-gap measure, a bridge, if you will, till we got the factory-produced level two and the level one protection for our vehicles, and that's what we call level-three hardening. That's taking steel plates that have been approved, make sure that they've got the type of minimal protection that we want, we take those and cut those for vehicles, and then we can either weld them on a vehicle or we can bolt them on. And our real focus for the level-three armor is not the humvees, it's really the series of trucks that the Army uses in combat operations.

So we've got three things going right now: the level one, about 6,000 vehicles; the level two, the add-on kits, about 10,000 vehicles; and then we've got about -- almost 4,500 vehicles that have the level- three protection, the welded, bolted-on, locally fabricated steel plating on the vehicles. [ So out of 30,000 vehicles in theatre, 70% have armor protection. ] ...

Your second question was about 6,000 up-armored humvees. Right now the requirement that we've got from Multinational Corps Iraq and Multinational Force Iraq, General Casey and General Tom Metz, are for about 8,100 up-armored humvees. And we're about 6,000 into that production. So we still have a ways to go. But at the rate of over 400 a month, we're making steady progress.

... We've got about 30,000 wheeled vehicles in our theater -- in Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas that CFLCC and Central Command operate. Of that 30,000 vehicles, around a little less than 8,000 of them do not have some type of armor protection on them -- level one, two or three. Of those vehicles that don't, some number of them are things like tool trucks, communication vans or vehicles that don't leave the base camp. ...

... When you couple this level-two capacity, and I said that just for humvees alone we're at about 10,000 up-armored humvees. When you combine the 6,000 and the almost 10,000, we're in relatively good shape humvee-wise. It's the rest of the fleet that we are really working hard with the level-three armor, again, the locally fabricated steel plating that we weld or bolt on, and the add-on armor kits that industry is producing for us. And we've got the requirements for what we have and we're moving towards that production and that installation. ... But we're not lacking at this point for our kits, our steel plating to fabricate the level three kits or the personnel to apply those kits. That's going. I mean, it's hard work. Our soldiers and our "soldiers in slacks," our civilian workforce, as you can see behind me, are working hard to do it. But it's not for lack of material, and it's not for lack of vehicles to put it on. ... So we've got the well-planned and orchestrated schedule and a plan to do this. We're sticking to it. And we're on a good track to in fact accomplish our mission in that respect.

Each point refutes the Statesman's rant about this being a fiasco. Two thirds of the vehicles in Iraq are up armored. Thin-skinned vehicles are restricted to garrison and other light duty. Production of armor kits went from a 30 a month in 2003 to 450 a month today. The Army has a plan to address the issue, so that every one of 30,000 vehicles in theatre have the armor needed, and they are executing on that plan at a fast clip. New rotating units into Iraq do some of the up-armor work in Kuwait. If this unit was scavenging for parts, they may have been thrifty and versatile, but were likely not forced into it for lack of 'level 3' armor kits.

And so it goes. The issue is getting hashed out in the press - NY Post, blogs - Instapundit, 2 Slick, Blackfive, etc.

Searching out the facts led me to the wonderful MilBlog of Sgt Missick, who was there at Rumsfeld's visit, and has a lot to say. Some excerpts:

Today was one of the days throughout this deployment that I will remember the rest of my life. It was an opportunity to meet one of the key architects in the War on Terror, and a man whom I personally admire. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stood before about 2,300 soldiers today on what was a fairly cool and overcast morning, and spoke to us about our place in history, the difficult job we have before us, and the thankfulness that the American people hold in their hearts for everyone deployed in the Global War on Terror.

... Mr. Rumsfeld gave a very good speech to “Rally the Troops” and it was heartening to sit there in that aircraft hangar, only feet away from the man who holds the power of America’s armed forces in his hand. After his formal speech, he opened the floor to questions. I was impressed once again with our nation, when a 20 year old Specialist has the opportunity to stand before the Secretary of Defense and ask him a direct and difficult question. Mr. Rumsfeld did receive such questions today, and handled them fairly well. ... I was impressed at both his speech and the fact that he visited today.

... Although the AP article captured the sentiments a little more accurately, I must say that the mood in the hangar was much more of goodwill, with soldiers packing around the Secretary as if he was a movie star to shake his hand or get a picture at the end.

.... there was definitely a sense of exaggeration in the tone [of MSM reporting] that presented the townhall meeting as a gripe session. As one of the soldiers in the audience, I felt that presenting the morning in such a fashion was misleading, and with such negative connotations, I wondered how long it may be before the MSM ran with the story and turned a pleasant morning with the Secretary of Defense into a scenario that resembled a defendant being cross-examined by the prosecution in a court room.

... I was surprised that this part of the event was not micromanaged, I want to ensure you that I was pleasantly surprised. In my opinion, it shows the attitude that this Secretary has towards the soldiers he is sworn to represent. It shows those in uniform that he does not see us or our concerns as "below his level," but instead sends a signal that we are his concern, and ensuring we can accomplish the mission is his highest priority.

One more thing I would like to add is this, not one soldier present asked questions about why we were here, or expressed the sort of anti-war sentiment that Michael Moore led some to believe was prevalent in the military. Rather, the concern was about ensuring we would be supplied with all necessary equipment to accomplish the mission and return home safely. Let there be no doubt, this was not a hostile crowd eager to catch the Secretary of Defense off guard by grilling him with questions he has never had to answer. This was a group of truly admirable American's and patriots, receiving confirmation from the man who controls the Department of Defense, that we have the full fledged moral, financial and logistical support, to accomplish the mission.

Parting shot via Insapundit, who said: Tim Morris emails: "I think it's interesting that everyone seems to be missing the real point - the Secretary of Defense, essentially second only to the President in the civilian portion of the chain of command, was called to account by an enlisted solider, and a low ranking one at that, and he stood there and took it because that's his job."

Well said. I continue to be proud both of the men in uniform and the men who are leading them - officers, commanders, our Secty of Defense, and the CinC himself.

AP report leads with the violence in Fallujah, but buried in the report is good about moderate Sunni parties fielding slates.

Two moderate, mainly Sunni Muslim parties announced they would field slates for the polls, indicating an apparent strengthening of support for the vote among the religious minority, despite calls from some Sunni politicians for a boycott.

Sunnis traditionally have enjoyed significant privilege in Iraq, but have lost their political ascendancy since Saddam's fall. The country's majority Shiites - numbering 60 percent of the population - are expected to exploit their weight of numbers and dominate the post-election legislature.

"They (the Sunnis) realized that there was no chance for postponing and that it's better to participate," said Nehro Mohammed Abdul-Karim Kasnazan, a leader of the Coalition of Iraqi National Unity, which is fielding a 275-member slate for the polls.

The Constitutional Monarchy Movement, a moderate Sunni-dominated group seeking the restoration of a constitutional monarchy, also announced a list of 275 election candidates. The slate is headed by Sharif Ali, a cousin of Iraq's last king - who was killed in a 1958 military coup, and includes Kurds and Shiites.

A former Governing Council member, Naseer al-Chadarchi, announced that his Patriotic and Democratic Party, another moderate Sunni fringe movement, would field at least 40 candidates, including Shiites from southern Iraq, according to aide Omar al-Ma'arouf.

Without the blogging of the Fadhil brothers to set us straight, we'd be hard-pressed to even surmise, based on media reporting, that there were pro-democracy Sunnis in Iraq. Of course, our favorite in this election is the Fadhil's Pro-Democracy party, not mentioned in the news; we do wish these idealistic Iraqi bloggers well - they are true patriots for Iraq and democracy both.

Arafat dies and peace starts breaking out. Intifada is over, says an analyst, and things are much quieter on the Western wall, despite today's violence. PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas is the front-runner for Palestinian leadership, now that Barghouti has withdrawn his candidacy, and he is mending fences with Kuwait while the Palestinians look forward to elections in January. Polls shows Palestinian attitudes are softening - more want peaceful co-existence with Israel.

On the other side of the fence, Labor is joining Sharon's Government, and a thaw with Egypt is underway: Sharon's spokesman Raanan Gissin said the release of 100 to 200 prisoners would be a gesture to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who freed convicted Israeli spy Azzam Azzam last week and plays a growing role in trying to promote peace talks.

Now, I'm in the Arafat died of AIDS camp, but in the unlikely event he really was poisoned - like Yushchenko was - a nomination for a Nobel peace prize is in order.

Thought for the day: This moment, right now, is the beginning of the rest of your life. Each moment is a sequence of thoughts, decisions, actions, and emotions. You have the power to change your life by changing those thoughts, decision, actions and emotions, moment by moment. We carry a legacy of our history and our past to the present time. It can be a pedestal or an anchor, but it cannot stop you from remaking the future. The future is closer than you think - it begins NOW.

I am pondering some changes in this blog. What they are is TBD, and I would like you the reader to let me know what you think of the blog. Since June, this blog has been dedicated almost solely to the subject of Liberating Iraq, for a critical reason: I observed that completing the mission of Liberating Iraq was the crucial test for America that would determine our success or failure in defeating terrorism or living with it for decades to come; I felt compelled to respond to the bogus pessimism over Iraq that I feared would convince America to shirk from the duty of completing this mission. Iraq had become most of what I was writing about and obsessing over since the spring, and I recall spending much time in April checking up Belmont Club's post on the Fallujah campaign back then. It was I think Michael Moore's F911 that convinced me to put serious effort and make the 100% focus of the blog be "Liberating Iraq".

The Bush-bashing media full of antipathy towards American power tried mightily this year to sway American voters to vote against the Iraq war and Bush both. This blog (i.e., my position) was fore-square for both staying the course in Iraq and for re-electing Bush. The issues came together and merged in the heat of the campaign, especially when 'flip-flopper' Kerry did a full Howard Dean and made frontal attacks on Bush's Iraq policy. The interests of Bush's political enemies and America's war on terror enemies converged, as I wrote on September 17th:

The terrorists have an explicit goal of defeating America in Iraq by recreating Iraq as another Vietnam; they are throwing everything they have at Iraq. To win in Iraq, terrorists have to defeat Bush. The Leftists in America have a different agenda, but converge with terrorists on the same goal - defeat George W Bush. Leftists will create the image of Vietnam to defeat Bush, while the terrorists want to defeat Bush to recreate the reality of a Vietnam-like exit.

The battle was joined - and on election day, the battle was won. I also laid out Bush's reelection as one critical element to victory in Iraq, and said that with Bush re-elected, victory in Iraq was in our grasp. Clearly, the reelection of Bush was a statement that America supported determination, resolve and staying the course in Iraq until victory.

Now, the media pessimism that worried me six months back has a different ring to it - it's the useless chattering of naysaying spectators in the peanut gallery. History and events in the next 6 months will pass them by. The elements of victory in Iraq are falling into place: Democracy is being built in Iraq; Iraqi security forces are getting better, albeit at a pace frustrating to those of us used to instant answers; forces that were causing us trouble (like al-Sadr's Mahdi army) have dispersed and been folded into the political process; the insurgency, while killing many Iraqis, has completely failed to gain any kind of following among a population that wants democracy and is horrified by the violence, mayhem and terrorism of the so-called insurgents.

Was the re-election of Bush 'the tipping point' as I predicted several months back? With his re-election followed the Fallujah offensive, which, at a cost of 50 Marine lives, removed perhaps 2,000 insurgents, destroyed the main haven for terrorism, and gave the U.S. and trove of intelligence on the insurgency. I had meant the point at which the matter is decided, and in my opinion, the matter is decided: It is not a matter of if we succeed in Iraq, it is simply a matter of what the cost will be, in treasure and in lives, to guarantee success and stand up Iraq as a free, democratic and independent nation.

That being the case, it's no surprise that I've focussed lately on the costs - the military viewpoints, the soldiers' stories. What they've had to give up, what they are going through. I was determined when I started blogging for this to be an avenue of my expression, but I find myself doing mostly linking and referencing, since my thoughts are already expressed somewhere most of the time, often better than I could (especially when it's Steyn).

After some incredible spikes in readership during the campaign season (thanks to folks like Allahpundit), I find the readership is down to a lower but respectable 100 a day or so. How valuable are my words and what should I focus on? Should I stay with "liberating Iraq" as sole focus, or broaden it to my other interests again? What sorts of posts are best - the 'newsy' posts where I pass on the 'terrorist catch of day' or some pithy WashPost article, or my own OpEds? These are questions to myself and also to you dear reader. Send me email or leave a comment. Help write our future - it begins ... NOW.

Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol beats the drum for "Getting Serious about Syria". The best defense (of Iraq) may be a good offense, but the most sublime victory are those won without battle. Time for new SoS Condi Rice to rise to the challenge of setting Syria's Assad & Co straight.

Via FR, got linked to this excellent Wall Street Journal article on how the "U.S. Army Rethinks Its Future." It's a great article on how assumptions made prior to the Iraq war about the 'high-tech' nature of future wars were thrown out the window by the Iraqi experience.

Perhaps the most striking changes are taking place on Army posts such as Fort Carson, Colo., where the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment is getting ready for an Iraq deployment early next year. Since taking command of the 5,000-soldier regiment this summer, Col. H.R. McMaster, an early critic of the Army's vision of fast, high-tech wars, has put his troops through weeks of mock raids. He has staged convoy ambushes and meetings with role players acting as local Iraqi leaders. Such training is becoming common throughout the Army.

The blogger 2Slick discusses the article and recounts Col McMaster's impressive resume. This man was a West Point Professor teaching 2Slick - from experience. In February 1991, McMaster led Eagle Troop, Second Armored Cavalry Regiment through some of the most intense fighting in Operation Desert Storm. Now, Col McMaster is set to lead 5,000 men into Iraq next year, and is training his men on the kind of operations his unit can expect to face there. 2Slick comments:

The training these guys are getting is so valuable, I can't even begin to explain. If someone had told me in January of 2003 that I would be attending daily meetings with Mosul University and City Officials and negotiating contracts with Iraqi businessmen by May of 2003- I would have laughed in their face. I would have reminded them that I'm a Black Hawk pilot and would have suggested that they seek professional help. Well, guess what?

Last night, I watched the History channel. Two shows, one on the Iraqi insurgency, and one on the battle of Palo Alto, the first battle of the war between Mexico and United States in 1846. As the documentary told it, wily insurgents were coming up with this or that technique to throw the U.S. off-balance. When they tried something that failed, they died. It went from hit-and-run, to IEDs, to car bombs, to ambushes, to standing battles. Any time they stayed and fought, we'd defeat them. But often after a battle they would just run away and melt back into the population. Lessons have been learned by both sides, and a 'darwinian' process has winnowed out the weak and amateur insurgents, leaving better trained enemies for our soldiers, while our own performance has improved.

In the battle of Palo Alto of 1846, a critical U.S. advantage was the fact that junior officers were trained at West Point, and they thought as they fought, innovating on the battlefield and using the tactics they learned in the classroom. Mobile 'flying' artillery was used to critical effect. The Mexican soldiers were as well-trained, but the leadership was more centralized and brittle (with a poor battle plan for the terrain, to boot). Seeing both shows back to back reminded me that history and heritage gives us a legacy to build on.

Today, that heritage of a well-trained, flexible, innovative officer corps is a critical advantage we have in Iraq. Lessons have been learned the hard way about how to crack the insurgency, and it's within the officer corps all the way down to the platoon level that the learning means most. The enemy has had cycles of learning and so have we. But there is one lesson that is very hard on our enemy - the fact that we stayed. We left Somalia and we left Lebanon, but in Iraq, we are staying. Staying long enough to assure victory is the most important lesson to get right. Lives lost in this war to break that syndrome and to will be saved many times over in years to come.

In From the Cold: He Was a Communist For Dutch Intelligence. is a great story about a phony leader of a Dutch Communist Party, a ruse to gain intelligence on the Communist Government of China. Here's a funny side-story:

In a country where erstwhile Maoists and other radicals have become pillars of the establishment, the exposure of the phony Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands, or MLPN, has caused dismay and embarrassment. Frits Hoekstra, a former high-ranking security official, shocked former colleagues in September by publishing a book that described Project Mongol and other escapades. The interior minister ordered an investigation into whether state secrets were divulged. Former Maoists are aghast.

"I totally wasted 12 years of my life," says Paul Wartena, an ex-MLPN member who was so dedicated to the cause he used to donate 20% of his salary to the fake party. He says he "had some doubts now and then" about the MLPN but stayed loyal because "I was very naive and Mr. Boevé was such a good actor." Now a researcher at a university in Utrecht, Mr. Wartena wants Dutch intelligence to pay him back for all his donations. Mr. Boevé, now 74, scoffs at his acolyte: "He was an idiot."

Too funny, a radical joined the Communist Party and found out it was all a lie. So what's new here?

Humvees No Match for Crude Bombs says LA Times, in a piece about a Humvee 'graveyard' of vehicles taken out by IEDs. IEDs, roadside bombs, have been the most lethal weapon against U.S. soldiers. About half of U.S. fatalities have been due to roadside bombs, targetting supply convoys or patrols along highways and roads:

Marines and soldiers continue to die almost daily from IEDs, the Iraq war's contribution to the world's catalog of effective low-tech weapons. But the term "improvised" is misleading because the explosive is typically a factory-produced 155-millimeter artillery shell that stands taller than knee-high. The shells are usually propped against a post or hidden under roadside mounds of garbage.

We now know the insurgency is far from a crude affair, it was planned by Saddam before the war, is well-funded, and has former Saddam loyalists in the military in its ranks. As a warfare tactic, it was however improvised in the summer of 2003, and unfortunately continues because it works.

In related news, A brave Marine to receive a Purple Heart from President Bush. He was injured when an IED hit the LA-25 he was commanding and "threw the 28,000-pound vehicle into the air and sent shrapnel ripping through the 23-year-old Unity Christian High School graduate." He sustained serious leg and foot injuries:

This was Bajema's second tour of duty in Iraq in three years, and the second time he had been injured. He was treated in Iraq for a minor injury in August. Still, Bajema said he is proud to be a Marine and considers himself lucky. "I'm glad to get out of there with my life and all my limbs," he said. He expects to be able to use his leg after it heals.

"It will be awesome," Bajema said. "I'm really looking forward to meeting the President."

What would be better though would be to adapt, not just with armor but with military doctrine to defeat the IEDs and insurgency. That's subject of the next post...

Good news from Iraq from irrespressible Chrenkoff. Good news on the elections and securities fronts reported. Now Pejmanesque tells us Andrew Sullivan at TNR has gotten more optimistic, largely over the election prospects.

I am in the corner that always felt and knew the elections would be a success. The latest news about the coalition-building slates, the commitment from the Iraqi Government to the deadline, and the strong support of most Iraqis for elections in January validates that confidence. The "delay the vote" ploy fizzled and the 'respectable' Adnan Pachachi went from backing delay to filing for his own bid. Reuters tries to pour cold water on the Shi'ite slate by describing the SCIRI faction as "Iran-linked" (that is hyperbole); it may be taken as a good sign that they don't expect they will have a failed election to describe.

In Zarquawi's loss was Fallujah's gain, Frontpage lectures the media on their previous failure to adequately describe the success. Optimism may be rising, but with the media downplaying the positives of the election, there is still a ways to go. Surely, some in the media will describe the election success as a setback to America plans (it won't be). It will be good news when the 'bad news' is the politics of a democratic Iraq and not the violence of the terrorist insurgency.

Via FR and BLACKFIVE, a soldier's last request:

Dear 1st Squad, If you’re reading this, then I’ve died for our country. I just hope it wasn’t for nothing. After the IED went off yesterday, I wanted to write this in case something happens to me. There are a few more letters that I’d like you to give my wife and family. I’d like to have a military funeral, but, if you can work please make sure that Toby Keith’s “American Soldier” is played at the ceremony in addition to the bagpipes. If they won’t let it happen, that’s ok, thanks for trying…... I know that all the belongings I have here will go to Melissa, but there are a few more things I’d like for you guys to make sure she gets. I have a dog tag w/ our picture on it along w/ some pictures and an American flag in my left breast pocket. There is also a can that says “Son” on it that Melissa’s parents gave me that I’d like for them to have, and that angel stone should go to her grandma and grandpa Snow. Now if I died w/ blue eyes (one blew that way and one blew the other way) and there’s nothing really left of me, that’s ok, I know you meant well.

Specialist David Mahlenbrock, who wrote this, was killed by an IED on December 3rd in Kirkuk, Iraq.

Specialist David Mahlenbrock will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetary on Wednesday, December 15th at 10AM EST. David's family and friends are asking radio stations to play Toby Keith's "American Soldier" on the 15th at 1pm EST with a dedication to Specialist David Mahlenbrock.

Hat tip to Laura Ingraham for reading this a few days back, a Washington Post story by Jackie Spinner (posted on Free Republic) about Marine Lance Cpl. June N. Ramos, serving in Iraq:

Marine Lance Cpl. June N. Ramos, 32, displays the Communion wafers he carries. He has escaped serious injury more than once during his tour in Iraq.They call him the "warrior monk." Ramos, 32, was studying to be a Benedictine monk when he joined the Marines in 2003. He wants to be a chaplain, but first, he said, he must live the life of a Marine grunt.

So this is where he was on a crisp morning in Iraq, guarding a police station in this city 25 miles south of the capital, barbed wire surrounding the complex where he had slept fitfully in the cold air.

"I'm a Filipino citizen, serving in the United States Marines, fighting for the United States," he said, his body upright and at attention while he talked.

Leadership Lessons from Iraq, an inspiring message about caring for your fellow Marine - reason #1 why we have the greatest military in the world.

Rumsfeld takes soldier's questions in Kuwait. Media has a field day over a question LGF says was a Journalist set-up. But the real story is untold. Here's a question the media hasn't publicized:

Q: Sergeant Carr (sp), 3 in the 116 Armored Cav from Oregon. [Cheers] Mr. Secretary, with the recent re-election of our commander in chief to another term in office, the U.S. people sent a message to the world that we are committed to fight this war on terrorism. Specifically, in regards to non-NATO countries, how has this message affected their posture or willingness to renegotiate their relationship with the United States?

And here is an answer except that didn't get media play:

Q: Staff Sergeant Kobeck (sp) with Charlie Company 171 Aviation. With the recent success of the elections in Afghan, what message will you take back to the States to the people that say we couldn’t get it done?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I guess the short answer is you folks did get it done in Afghanistan. And it was a breathtaking, thrilling moment to be there yesterday and to see that inauguration and to see the first popularly elected president take his oath of office and to hear the stories that he told – the stories of women who left maternity areas in their homes, having just had babies to go in and vote, people who got up at three in the morning and walked in the cold to get there to vote, individuals who were standing in line in a voting area and 100 meters away there was a explosion where some Taliban were trying to disrupt the elections and the people stayed right in line and voted. And that says something about the power of freedom. It says something about the desire on the part of human beings. And when people constantly look at what’s going on and find everything they can say – take Iraq, there’s a lot not right in Iraq. That’s a fact and we know that and people are being killed and people are being wounded.

And when you visit with the wounded in Walter Reed and Bethesda your heart goes out to them. But I can tell you, they’re proud of what they’ve been doing. They know what they’re doing is important. They believe in what they’re doing. Their families believe in what they’re doing. And it is a – I mean, the other side of the coin is this: In Iraq, there are 25 million people who were living under a vicious dictator with killing fields, mass graves. And today the schools are open, the clinics are open, the hospitals are open, the stock markets open. People have an opportunity.

I was with one of the leaders of a Gulf country and I suppose it’s not for me to talk about a private meeting. But he looked at me and he said: You know, you Americans have sent the finest young men and women from your country over to Iraq -- this is a neighbor of Iraq – and you’ve sent them over there to free those 25 million people and you’ve liberated those 25 million people and you’ve opened the schools and you’ve opened the hospitals. And now it’s up to the Iraqi people. And the Iraqi people are going to have to pick up and grab a hold of their country and make that country work. In the last analysis, you can’t do that for someone else. All you can do is create an environment that allows them to do that. And that’s what’s happening. That’s what’s taking place. And is it perfect, no. Is it ugly from time to time, yes. It is dangerous, you bet your life, it is. But God bless the people who’ve done it and who are doing and who are giving those 25 million people the opportunity to be free and to be liberated and to have opportunities they never could have thought of under that vicious dictator. [Applause] Question.

I'm paraphrasing the headline from a funny and satirical Onion piece after 9/11. This story about cleaning up Fallujah, has a precious quote that reminded me of how clueless the Jihadists really are about the world:

"They were pretty disillusioned with the whole bill of goods they were sold as far as being jihadists," Sattler said.

So, they hadn't figured on JDAMs and tanks killing them? They hadn't figured out that sowing violence reaps death and blood and agony? They hadn't calculated that forces would defeat their plots and fight their evil? If we can kill 9 out of 10 and send the tenth one home in tears, gibbering and quivering over how awful it was, we may yet defeat the Jihadist mindset.

Iraqi Shi'ites Launch Powerful Election Bloc says Reuters. The news is even better than I had hoped. First, the secular parties have joined and moderated the list. Second al-Sadr's people are in the coalition but NOT on the list, meaning his faction has indeed been absorbed. SCIRI and Dawa hold the high cards:

Two big Shi'ite religious parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Dawa, lead the bloc. Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shi'ite and former U.S. favorite who heads the Iraqi National Congress, also has a prominent role.

Representatives of Moqtada al-Sadr, a young cleric who has led two Shi'ite uprisings against U.S. forces, are also in the coalition. Sadr and his chief aides are, however, not on the list of 228 candidates, a third of whom are women.

Among others on the list are the chief of the big, mainly Sunni Arab Shamar tribe from around the restive northern city of Mosul, where the insurgency has flourished in recent weeks. The chief is a cousin of interim President Ghazi al-Yawar.

That point about women should allay the fear that the Constitution-writers would be too "Islamic" or lose the protections of religion and status of women that were in the interim Constitution that the CPA developed. There are 275 seats up for grabs - if this coalition wins the majority share, then Allawi (who is aligned with the Dawa party) would likely continue to lead the country, another positive. This bloc also indicates the likely future political configuration of a democratic Iraq, with most power in the hands of the Shi'ite related parties, and Sunni Arab and Kurd faction playing lesser (but in some cases 'swing voter') roles. This announcement is a refutation both of the 'they are not ready for democracy' lament and the fears that radicals or theocrats could gain the upper hand in a democracy. Of course, we won't know until votes are cast, but it is shaping up that center of political gravity is more modern, secular, moderate and pro-democratic than the fearmongers predicted.

This news continues a trend of positive developments on the political front, marred by continued lack of security as the bottleneck to Iraq's future.

RAID PUTS 'SERIOUS DENT' IN TERRORIST EFFORTS IN BAGHDAD, declares CENTCOM:

Task Force Baghdad Soldiers conducted a raid on a sports complex at 4 p.m., Dec. 6 in eastern Baghdad, capturing several suspected senior level transnational terrorists, including key leaders, operatives, and financiers. Operation Soprano Sunset targeted the sports complex, which was suspected as the base of operations for transnational terrorist members. Records and computers were also seized in the raid.

“This operation put a serious dent in the transnational terrorism in Baghdad.” said Col. Robert “Abe” Abrams, commander of the 1st Cavalry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, which operates in eastern Baghdad.

Phew, for a second I was worried, and then I realized it was only the CIA saying Iraq violence will get worse. A leaked classified memo, no less (isn't it an oxymoron for a front page story to talk of 'classified information'?). Not all are as gloomy: The US ambassador to Baghdad, John Negroponte, said the CIA gave too little credit to recent US victories against insurgents. However, the assessments acknowledged that the Iraqi authorities were making important political progress and hailed the "resilience" of the Iraqi people.

It goes without saying that the violence will abate only when the forces creating violence are defeated. Predictions of violence are really only telling us that we haven't won yet. CIA seems to have a keen grasp of the obvious there, like their shocking revelation that Jihadist Islamic terrorism is based on the Quran. ( Admitteldy, some of statements in this article may shock a few lulled by 'religion of peace' mantras: "Of the 6,000 or more mosques in North America, 80 per cent are radical in orientation and devoted to spreading an intolerant Wahabi strain of Islam. They are funded by Saudi Arabia, he said.")

Now, the victory in Fallujah has given us greater insight on the Syrian roots of the insurgency that explains further why it has been persistent:

Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency.

In some cases, evidence suggests that these Baathists are managing operations in Iraq from a distance, the officials said. A U.S. military summary of operations in Fallujah noted recently that troops discovered a global positioning signal receiver in a bomb factory in the western part of the city that "contained waypoints originating in western Syria."

While we defeat terrorists in detail in tactical actions, and while we have gained by removing their main safe haven in Fallujah, the strategic configuration will have to change further for us to truly win against the enemy. we cannot defeat the insurgency fully without ripping it up by the roots. At the current time, 3 out of 18 provinces are at issue, most of the remainder are peaceful now that the Shiite front has closed down and become a political process issue.

Here's what is needed: (a) More troops (Iraqi or coalition or both), (b) Sealing the Syrian border, (c) greater intelligence (through more offensive operations that capture the enemy), (d) political changes and process to peel away tribal and Sunni support for the baathist-funded insurgency and terrorism. This, balanced with reconstruction progress and economic progress, would win the war. Ultimately, we have to rip the insurgency up by the roots and cut the tree from those roots.

The main area of legitimate pessimism would be in the continuing difficulty in 'standing up' large scale Iraqi forces to defend Iraq from the insurgency. A new graduating class of Iraqi counter-terrorism forces is proof we are making progress. Too many of the Iraqi forces have been rendered ineffective by the effective techniques of the terrorists: Good officers are assassinated and bad ones are 'turned' via threats, bribes or pre-existing sympathies. It's clearly been not enough to simply take old soldiers (Fallujah Brigade), or just put some men into uniform (early ICDC units, that basically fled when violence erupted). We have had to train up a solid force. It's happening, gradually:

“The training we have now from the Jordanian and the American instructors was very hard,” said one graduate [of the 15 week counterterrorism police training].

“It was hard every day, but it made us stronger and we are ready to fight for a new Iraq,” he said. “We know that being strong will beat the terrorists and protect Iraq for the future. But it is not enough to only be strong or brave; we also needed [to learn] the new ways. And now we have the training we need.”

Whatever the current difficulties, we are going in the right way. If it was easy, we'd be done by now. It's not; it's hard. When we succeed, the task will be remembered as easier and more certain of success than we think it to be now. That's the nature of things.

Shiite parties unify for January elections, reports Wash Post: Sistani Backs List for Parliamentary Vote

"We consider that this alliance has really made an historic impact on Iraqi society," said Shahristani, 62, who was imprisoned for 12 years by the Hussein government. "This is a historic moment for the birth of a new, democratic and just Iraq."

The 240 names on the United Iraqi Alliance list are drawn from a mix of parties. Independent candidates will account for half of the slate. The candidates highest on the list, who would be the first to receive seats, will clearly distinguish the slate as Sistani's, Shahristani said.

"People looking at the first few names will immediately recognize that these are people acceptable to him," said Shahristani, who will be among the candidates.

Sistani's party is SCIRI. If SCIRI does this successfully they have effectively absorbed the al-Sadr faction (who got 30 names on the 240 name list) and a number of smaller factions. That means some fire breathers in the ranks but they are a minority.

THIS IS GOOD NEWS. Democracy naturally moderates things; democratic politics tends to migrate the balance of power to the middle. The 'middle' here is the balance between religious and secular parties. Sistani has once again proven himself to be both a moderating force and politically astute. He understands that there is strength in unity and so he has gathered a coalition, that will support his agenda. Fortunately, his agenda is pro-democracy and for peace and the building of civil society in Iraq. He is not a secularist but neither is he seeking Iranian style theocracy.

This move is a huge boost to the elections and will put more momentum towards other groups conerging to build coalitions.

He came with a clear message, similar to Allawi's message in September. Thank you -"we in Iraq appreciate very much all the assistance and all the sacrifices that the American people are making for us in Iraq." The terrorists are illegitimate. Stick to election date - "I think the worst thing to do is to postpone elections. This will give a tactical victory to the insurgents, to the forces of darkness." And we need to complete the job. Extended excerpts follow.

President Ghazi al-Yawar on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: You can't even secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad. How can you possibly have free and fair elections?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: That's been made deliberately by these people who are fighting, the insurgents, in order to present this gloomy picture. The challenge is to move ahead and get the election on time. The problem, it's not the people are reluctant. Yes, there is a problem in the security situation. And people are scared of going and registering their names, of reprisals, atrocities of these armies of darkness. If we can do something in these areas by enhancing the security situation, a lot of people are willing to join in now. We are not talking about people want to be in or not. Everybody is committed. But the problem is they are fearing reprisal of these people who are doing these bad actions.

MR. RUSSERT: But the insurgency seems to be very widespread. We now have more U.S. troops heading for Iraq and in Iraq than we had before the invasion. Americans were told by many Iraqis that we would be greeted as liberators, with flowers and sweets. Could this insurgency be as difficult and strong as it is without the support of many of the Iraqi people?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: I think it's strong without the support of Iraqi people. They are frightening people if you see Mosul City and the destruction and problems to these areas. They fled the areas after they put the people in the cross-fire. The thing is: How are we going to talk to these people? They don't have faces. They don't have leaderships. They don't have ideologies. They don't have any demands. They are just there, wanting to bring the old regime back into Iraq. And we are not going to go back to the time of the prewar era after all. With all of the ups and downs, it's much better without having the old regime back.

MR. RUSSERT: But could the insurgents--how could they live off the land? How could they be as organized as they are without the Iraqi populous tolerating them or at least not turning them in?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, people are passive, yes, because they have been held hostage by these people. It's like hoodlums where they frighten people. People are innocent and law-abiding citizens, and they are just frightened, scared for their families, for their children, and these people are--most of them are kidnapping people and selling them to another gang, a third gang, then a fourth gang. And this is a slavery. This is what they are doing right now in Iraq. I mean, the whole international community should understand that and should help us stop all these nonsense.

MR. RUSSERT: How can you hold an election if vast numbers of Iraqis, like yourself, Sunnis in the Sunni Triangle, are not allowed to vote or are incapable of voting because of lack of security?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, what I said before I still believe in. There is no sacred date, but the thing is this is a challenge that Iraqis have to take. And after reviewing the situation, I think the worst thing to do is to postpone elections. This will give a tactical victory to the insurgents, to the forces of darkness. That's why I have even established my own political entity after being reluctant for a long time. This is to encourage a lot of people from all aspects of Iraq, from all faiths, to join in, and not to sit because we have a silent majority in Iraq. We want this silent majority to say their word and I'm sure they are very capable and very influential.

MR. RUSSERT: Why are they so silent? If they didn't like Saddam Hussein and they were going to greet us as liberators, why are they still silent?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, first of all, these people have been living for 45 years in totalitarian regimes. They are still rehabilitating out of that. We're telling them your vote is very valuable. Cast your vote. This is your duty and this is your right. Don't forfeit it for any reason. This is what we are trying to do. We are trying to assist the people to come out of the shell of the totalitarian regimes and the oppressions of the past and this is very important.

MR. RUSSERT: You said this a month ago. "Whoever fights with the other on board this boat, will tip it over and make everyone fall into the river and get eaten up by the alligators. Not a single passenger will survive."

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Yes, sir. I did say that. That is because I want all Iraqis to understand that we are one team, we have one choice. It is to move along in tranquility to reach the shores of safety and build our prosperous country. And I still believe in it.

MR. RUSSERT: This is The New York Times today. This headline: "Sunnis vs. Shiites and Kurds; Mayhem in Iraq is Starting to Look Like a Civil War." Do you believe that Iraq is on the verge of a civil war?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Never ever. Iraq has been--if you look deep into our history, 7,000 years of history, we never, ever had a single incident of unrest built on ethnicity or sect or religion. We never had that. All this has been--all these stories and scenarios has been imported to Iraq, and it's time for Iraqis to understand themselves firsthand, not to listen to others telling them how they should behave. I don't think--I'm 100 percent sure--and this is my intuition--we will never, ever have civil war or unrest based on ethnicity or belief or sectarian reasons.

MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. You're a Sunni Muslim. You're a minority in the country. If, in fact, the Shia elect a majority of the government and control the national government, can the Sunnis accept minority status?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, first of all, the Sunni Muslims--if we are talking about Sunni Muslims, Sunni Muslims makes about 50 percent of the Iraqi population, because the Kurds are Sunni Muslims too, most of them. We do not have a problem. In Iraq, we have a challenge of sectarian vs. civil-oriented people. That's people who believe that the religion is more sacred to be involved in politics. And this is a dimension we have in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about the--your comments about the silent majority.

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: Americans see their death toll passing 1,000 men and women; their injured and wounded, over 7,000. And they say: Why should Americans fight and die for Iraqi people if they are passive and they're a silent majority? If you yourself don't want democracy, and aren't willing to fight and die for it and put down the insurgency and not in any way enable it, why should Americans stay there and die for you?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, first of all, our thoughts goes for the families of the people who lost their lives in Iraq. But we in Iraq appreciate very much all the assistance and all the sacrifices that the American people are making for us in Iraq. What we believe in--that by empowering Iraqis and helping us build our security forces and military on proper technical and moral backgrounds, this will be the solution for the Iraqi problem. Myself is 100 percent convinced that the solution for the security situation is Iraq should be 100 percent Iraqi. Until then, we need our friends to help us preserve our security. But we have to work and expedite building Iraqi security forces from now.

When I mention the silent majority, I mentioned the people who were, out of fear of reprisals, of oppressive regimes, of the vicious dictatorship like Saddam--they were hurt. They were being-- hibernating in caves. And this is a moral and national and human duty, is to help these people come out of these caves. And I think the United States, being the superpower, is destined to be helping all the people in the world to make the world a free world, really.

MR. RUSSERT: Realistically, how long do you think American troops are going to have to stay in Iraq?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: As long as we can--I hope it will be as short as we can build our security forces 100 percent. That is not impossible. Iraq is very well-known in the Middle East for the human resources we have. We have extremely qualified people. We have to start revisiting the issue of the old army and try to screen of--the people and bring back some of the people who have never had bloodstained hands in the past. ...

MR. RUSSERT: You think American troops could be out of Iraq in months?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, months--we're talking about months, probably; I don't know, six months or eight months or a year. But I don't think it will take years. Definitely not.

MR. RUSSERT: And American troops can come home?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: Yes, but after--when we build our security forces. I mean, this is a job which has been done, and this is--America cannot afford to retreat at this time. This will be bad for Iraq, the Middle East, and to the United States and the world.

MR. RUSSERT: You will meet with President Bush tomorrow. What will you tell him?

PRES. AL-YAWAR: I will tell him: "Thank you very much, Mr. President, for all the help we've had in the past." I will tell him that we in Iraq are determined to build our own democracy, own Iraqi-style democracy. But also, "We want you to help us empowering more Iraqis to assume responsibility, especially in the security forces arena."

President and Iraqi Interim President Al-Yawer Discuss Iraq Future on December 6th:

PRESIDENT AL-YAWER: Thank you very much, sir. I've been honored this morning to meet the President of the United States -- after all, we in Iraq are in debt for the United States for -- and the courageous leadership of President Bush of liberating Iraq from a dynasty, a villain. Right now we are faced with the armies of darkness who are -- who have no objective but to undermine the political process and incite civil war in Iraq. But I want to assure the whole world that this will never, ever happen; that we in Iraq are committed to move along. After all these sacrifices there is no way on earth that we will let it go in vain.

This is very important. Victory is not only possible, it's a fact, we can see it, it's there. We are committed. We see that we have all the reasons to prevail. We see that our enemy is an enemy that has only a short time because they have no roots in the Iraqi society, they have no ideology that they can sell to Iraq or the whole world.

There is unfairness by calling them Sunni insurgents -- these are not Sunni. These are a mix of people who have one thing in common: hatred to the Iraqi society and hatred to democracy, people who are trying to stop us from having our first elections. We in Iraq, the whole Iraqi society are willing to participate in elections. Nobody in Iraq wants to boycott the elections, except for some politicians. But I'm talking about the mass public of Iraq; they all are very anxious to go and cast their votes and practice, for the first time in 45 years, their right and duty of voting for whoever they feel confidence in.

This is very important. And I just came here to tell the President of the United States and the American public that we in Iraq are very appreciative for all the sacrifices; that this is a job that we see has honor and even a duty that we have to make everybody free. In Iraq, these people are trying to kidnap people in streets and sell them from one gang to another. This is slavery, and shame on anybody who can condone to slavery. We are going to face them. We are determined. And God bless you, sir.

Someone emailed a link to a depressing and biased "we're losing" article to me, from a leftie UK newspaper. That biased article definitely deserves a barf alert.

First, the headline is all wrong - this is about the Arab World, not the mindset of Iraqis. As many Iraqi bloggers Have pointed out, it is night-and-day the difference in views. Iraqis hated Saddam and many are grateful for US intervention To remove him. Polls are showing 85% support for elections in Iraq, And the terrorists in Iraq are succeeding in creating fear, but Not necessarily converts. They are condemned by many Iraqi segments of society. Non-Iraqis have a palestinian-centric mindset on this. Arab tyrants Are better than western benevolence in their ignorant view. You almost want to tell them: "Lay off the hashish, Ahmed".

Second, the article doesn't even mention the authors. It claims this is a Pentagon report, but in fact the Defense Advisory Board is an outside board. A who on the board is writing this? How are we to interpret these selective quotes?

It is not news that the Al Jazeera propaganda machine beats The US efforts at shaping attitudes in the mideast. That is because we Barely even try, and the task of changing deeply embedded views Based on 14 centuries of bigotry and absolutism is too great. The idea that these attitudes are somehow new is bunk. They are As old as Islam itself. Should we worry? Do we worry if rapists Have more negative attitudes about rape victims who fight back?

But for Arabs to increasingly be skeptical of their own tyrannies is not a 'failure' but a success. That is exactly what Bush called for, for the Arab world to question their own tyrannical Governments. And Bush called our long-standing support for tyrannies in the region a mistaken policy going forward. He's called for Democracy in the middle east. And Iraqis, among others, want exactly that.

It's not surprising that once again journalists selectively quote a report to make Bush administration look bad. But dig a little deeper, And you find that the real lesson the report is trying to impart Is a bit different: Many Arabs have awful attitudes about the world and the U.S., and the DoD/USA needs To pro-actively work to shape those attitudes or the Jihadist clerics Will do it for us.

If that was the intent of that report, I'd have to agree. Blogs for victory!

Some thought prompted by the statements by Sen Biden.

How can one make sense of the mix of good and bad - progress towards elections with the insurgency still active? Clearly, there is still a powerful and violent minority (of baathist and Jihadist terrorists and insurgents) for simply destroying Iraq's hopes for democracy. They hate American involvement more than they love Iraqi freedom and peace.

Fallujah indeed broke the insurgency's organization in al-Anbar province, but it has either scattered the insurgents or alerted them to higher levels of violence. But note a few details: No new spate of kidnappings, and coalition military claims the volume of attacks has gone down by a factor of 2. So while they can commit violence still, but we rolled back their central rallying point, and the latest attacks might be viewed as their "Ardennes Forest" attack, the final desperate measures to regain the offensive before they lose it forever.

Strategically, the key elements are the standing up of Iraqi forces (not so good but getting better, with key areas of superb performance - like the IIF), and the elections (on track). The insurgency is now cornered into a Sunni reactionary faction and a Jihadist faction. It is failing politically and succeeding only on the level of creating death and fear.

Optimistically, the way forward would be this: An election will puncture the illusion that the insurgency has a future and a sway over the people. By March 2005, we will win this.

Pessimistically, the spiral downward would be breakdown in the Iraqi security forces. Our military can fight and win any engagement, but the frustration is in seeing places we secured go back into insurgent control because the Iraqi police aren't strong enough to secure them. All the more reason why the insugency continues to attack police stations, Iraqi guardsmen, and other Iraqis. There's is a campaign attempting to isolate the U.S. forces.

I previously made some comments about Allawi. Prime Minister Allawi - like Bush - is a clear, straightforward and unshirking leader. He is clear about his commitment to the elections in January (now only 8 weeks away): "The forces of darkness and terrorism will not benefit from this democratic experience and will fight it," Ayad Allawi told The Associated Press. "But we are determined that this experiment succeeds."

This was quote in an AP article by HAMZA HENDAWI.

Soldiers for the Truth has an interesting article on Information as a Weapon of War. The media is aghast that the U.S. dares plays information games of deception and use ruses, for example, the announcement of Fallujah offensives that were 'false-start' disinformation fed via CNN. The SFTT columnist retorts:

I believe that it is imperative that the Pentagon fully embrace the potential of information operations as a weapon in the ongoing struggle for the future of Iraq. I recognize that my colleagues in the news media will find it easier to fault DoD for this approach than to admit that there is no neutrality on this battlefield and that for the military to forswear such a campaign is to yield that very battlefield to our enemies.

I agree, both that it is a good idea and that the media will continue to complain about it. And the author makes the correct point that this information warfare needs to be taken to the strategic level. "Shaping the battlefield" needs to go to the level of "shaping the informational battlefield":

Central Command and the DoD have no choice but to wage an aggressive information campaign throughout the Middle East to overcome the unbalanced, biased and dangerously inaccurate reports that media outlets such as al Jazeera have trumpeted for so long without challenge.

The new ways of war put a premium on information in all its forms and ways, starting with the belief system of the enemy which supports their will to fight.

The news reports are frustratingly obtuse about what happened, but let me go out on a limb here and suggest plainly: Ansar Al-Islam tried to kill Allawi. Three Ansar al-Islam members were arrested (and a fourth let go) in connection with this plot, by Greman authorities.

Foiling this saved us and Iraq from a huge setback. Allawi has projected the strength and confidence needed to carry Iraq through this time of terrorism and troubles to a better era of democracy and peace for Iraq.

In the news business, if it bleeds, it leads, and this weekend was a bloody one in Iraq, 70 Iraqis killed. The terrorists are persevering to derail democracy by attacking and killing Iraqi police, ING soldiers, and civilians. 4 U.S. soldiers also were killed. This weekend was similar to the spasm of violence in early September.

Although the coalition has flushed the terrorists out of many towns, the campaign of intimidation by the terrorist insurgency continues. It's what terrorism's political goal ultimately is: Fear. Fear in Baghdad described how killing of civilians and threats are wearing on the people: "There was anxiety, fear and some kind of sense that they were being threatened," recalled Hussein, describing the mood in the classroom. "That is how the insurgency works. They're trying to strike psychological fear into the hearts of the people."

An example is given of pro-terrorist/ pro-Jihadist graffiti, and also the example of murdering barbers who shave western-style:

Barbers also are being targeted. Emad Saifullah, 34, died three weeks ago in a hail of bullets fired by four masked gunmen waiting for him outside his shop in southern Baghdad's Dora neighborhood.

Several barbers in the area had received threats recently, posted on their doors, that if they didn't stop shaving beards and cutting hair short "like the Americans" they would be killed, recalled Ayad Saifullah, Emad's brother. Emad had not been threatened, but over the next 24 hours, two other barbers were slain in the area in similar circumstances, Ayad said.

Ayad Saifullah doesn't know who killed his brother, but he has for some time suspected that several of his neighbors have ties to the insurgency. Now he is suspicious of the sheik of his mosque, who made a comment at his brother's wake that Saifullah found troubling. "When he left he shook my hand and said, `I hope to see you in jihad.' This is a strange thing to say at a wake," he recalled. Now he thinks his own life may be in danger.

Another example is the act of driving from one place to another. USA Today reports on how the Baghdad Airport road has been so dangerous it is now closed for westerners.

Mohammed from Iraq the Model rides the death road that passes through Latifriyah, and has been the scene of murders of Shiite clerics, kidnappings of westerners and some Iraqis, and a large amount of violence:

Here, our fears reached a peak because we all knew that similar paths are the ones used by the terrorists as they're hidden by dense orchards. I became even more anxious when the guy sitting next to me took out his Id (which says that he works for one of the ministries) and passed it to the driver without saying a word and in what looked like an undeclared agreement, all the other passengers did the same adding their cell phones in some cases (the terrorists think that anyone carrying a cell phone in this area is a spy collecting intelligence for the government or the MNF).

The driver calmly took the Id's and phones and started hiding them in a small secret drawer underneath his seat. The guy next to me looked at me with a question in his eyes "and you?" I took out my Id and handed it over to the driver because I didn't want to violate this silent security agreement and I felt hurt because I had to hide what should be an honor of being a dentist serving the people, because the "resistance" consider serving the people a crime.

One of the passengers said whispering "where are the Americans? Where are the ING?" One replied saying "and who dares to enter these territories?!" We were overwhelmed with fear and anxiety until the guy sitting next to me said "look there" and pointed with his finger to the right.

We all turned to see what he was pointing to, and we regained some of our confidence as we saw a convoy of several Hummer vehicles patrolling the area. "They're not as cautious and afraid as we thought they would be. Here are they moving confidently" the driver said. "I don't think they'll stay here after sunset. The terrorists will take over the area at night" another passenger added. I smiled and thought "we fear our countrymen while we feel safe when the foreigners are moving around! Who's the occupier? Who are the bad guys here?"

His travel from Samawah to Baghdad ends happily and safely, with him relieved to see the signs on the road that declare: "The terrorists destroyed the bridge and we have rebuilt it", "Death to terrorism…long live the peace", "Long live the heroes of the ING, the loyal sons of Iraq"... and most importantly: "Your voice is as precious as gold. No, it's more than that!"

Elections are the way out of this mess, and for any UN envoy to suggest delaying elections is a solution is proof again of the UN's misguided priorities. Mr Brahimi defended Saddam a dozen years ago as head of the Arab League and now he carries water for the baathist terrorist paymasters that were Saddam's core supporters.

This is now solely a Sunni insurgency. To underscore this point, it's reported that Moqtada Sadr joins Sistani’s election list. This means that Sistani's men are trying to build a larger coalition for the Islamic Shiite parties to join. I'm not sure what to think of this. al-Sadr has indeed joined the political process, but certainly we'd hope he fades into oblivion.

Order in Iraq's chaos

The good news can be found in reports indicating a beginning of reorganization within the resistance to filter out non-Iraqi elements, more precisely, those alien to the Iraqi Sunni community.

The article is claiming that the insurgency is reshaping into the Sunni political force, rather than the 'unholy alliance' that included foreign fighters and terrorist groups, and as such may be more amenable to negotiation and entering into the political arena. But in the meantime the insurgency's setbacks and the urgency of derailing the election make them desperate, and the ongoing external funding from baathist paymasters and organization from former Saddam military make them capable. Hence the bloody days like Friday - raids on police stations, bombs, and firefights with the terrorist insurgency.

IRAQI SECURITY FORCES AND MNF-I NAB 53 INSURGENTS IN NORTHERN IRAQ. A deck of cards, and one joker.

A Liberal American teacher in the middle east says: "a surprising number of Arabs seem to have not only expected President George W. Bush's return to power but also supported it." You may be surprised at which country she discovered this in.

Installments from Tom Lassater's series on the fight for Fallujah, part 6, and part 5:

The streets outside were littered with dead men, their corpses left for cats and dogs to gnaw on after the sun set. The sight of bearded insurgents, eyes open, lying in gutters was no longer a novelty.

Walking through the house, Ofori turned his gun toward a doorway. Shots rang out. A fighter in the room had been waiting with a grenade in hand. He had probably been listening the entire time as the men sat on the sofa next door, their voices wafting through the holes in the wall.

When he jumped forward, he didn't scream Allahu Akbar -- God is Great -- as insurgents often did. He moved in silence, until Ofori's fire blew him back. Ofori looked down for a few seconds and walked out of the room. The soldiers behind him went inside to ogle. ''Damn, look at Hajji,'' one said, using the soldiers' slang for Iraqis.

Walking into the garage, Ofori found a dead fighter on the ground next to a pickup truck outfitted with a machine gun.

Some on FR have commented that the journalist has an anti-war agenda. The enemies get 'respect' (quotes like "U.S. troops marveled at the tenacity of insurgents") but our fighters are not described as heroes in these pieces. They fight, kill, die and the picture is one of intense combat and almost senseless violence, focussed on the cost and not the cause.

I see it differently. Whatever the author's motivation, the intensity of the fight, painted vividly, shows how heroic our marines and soldiers are. This was perhaps the toughest battle for our Marines since the similar urban combat of retaking Hue City in 1968. The Marines performed admirably and won a significant victory. The horrors that we found amongst the insurgent hideouts validates that this was and is a fight against evil.

It's not the journalists who are writing the story on Fallujah and on Iraq, but the men and women in uniform and their counterparts in the coalition, and among the Iraqi security services. Every day they write the book.

An insurgency requires recruits and funding to survive. In Daily Telegraph's "All aboard the terrorists' bus to Iraq" story, the money and men trail from Damascus to Iraq is illustrated. This is a serious threat to Iraq that is keeping the insurgency alive:

Abdullah, originally from the Aleppo area, and the other fighters, were provided with Iraqi passports and weapons. Abdullah was given a bazooka to carry. They were told they would be relieving Syrian mujahideen already in Iraq, part of a regular "troop" rotation, and would be expected to fight until they in turn were either killed or replaced.

In return Abdullah's family would be paid $3,000 (£1,600) a month by the mosque – more than most American soldiers in Iraq and a fortune in Syria where average salaries are less than £10 a week.

To enter Iraq from Syria there are three border crossings. Abdullah's convoy took the most northerly, through Rabia, a dusty collection of concrete houses straddling the border, and with pictures of the former Syrian president Hafez Assad festooning the checkpoint. Al-Jabouri tribesmen man the border. Like the al-Dulaimy tribe that guards the southern entry points into Iraq, they are deeply hostile to the US presence and Abdullah's convoy was waved through without checks.

The men were driven to a mosque in Mosul where, according to Abdullah, dozens of their fellow countrymen were staying. He would not disclose the name of mosque, but one such building in Mosul is the Mahmud mosque, infamous for supporting the insurgency. This squat building on the west bank of the city has seen some of the heaviest fighting between insurgents and US and Iraqi forces recently.

Sheikh Latif al-Jabouri, who runs the mosque, claims the Syrians he shelters are businessmen who come to buy and sell cars and pray. Inside the mosque, Abdullah was greeted by a former Iraqi military officer. He was assigned to a 10-man unit of Iraqi guerrillas, and the other Syrians he travelled with were spread among other units.

For the next 80 days, Abdullah and his unit went almost every day to attack American bases with mortars, or to man mujahideen checkpoints.

He took part in ambushes on US convoys. As a mine hit a patrolling Humvee, Abdullah fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the second vehicle. He was transferred to Fallujah for three months, conducting raids with his unit in the neigbouring Sunni towns of Samara and Ramadi.

I hate Vietnam analogies, but this sounds like the Ho Chi Minh trail (the Saddam Hussein trail?) of the war - vital sustenance to keep the insurgency going.

Some Stories from soldiers in Fallujah. See these FR articles as well.

Army Times (via FR) account of the Tal Afar firefight on September 4th. "the soldiers of 5-20 said the mission to recover the downed Kiowa and its two injured pilots was the most intense fight they had encountered since deploying to Iraq in December 2003."

It started out this way:

It was Sept. 4 at 8:50 a.m. operating about 1,500 meters apart, 5-20's Scout Platoon and B Company had just completed searches for terrorist leaders in the eastern section of Tall Afar. The battalion is part of 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (SBCT). Two OH-58 Kiowa helicopters were buzzing overhead, providing overwatch for the 160 or so soldiers on the ground.

The calm routine changed in a flash as rocket-propelled grenades streaked toward the helos.

Scout Platoon leader 1st Lt. Rob McChrystal saw a round hit one of the Kiowas behind the engine. "I saw it kind of burst into flames," he said. "It started to spin and go toward the ground. The first thing that went through my mind was, 'This is not a good situation. We need to get there before the enemy does,'" he recalled. "The [thing] that goes through your mind is them jumping on the Kiowa dancing around and executing the pilots. ... We all loaded up. Guys came sprinting from all different directions."

The insurgents were looking for a 'Blackhawk Down' incident and were coordinate attacks to make it so. And our soliders saved it from becoming a black mark on our forces, through courage under fire, grit, fast thinking, well-placed JDAMs, TOW missiles. The account is gripping. Troops in one company fought through alleyways to get to the crash site to protect another outnumbered platoon securing the area.

"Right before B Company showed up ... we are afraid we getting overrun here," he said. "Once 3rd Platoon and the rest of B Company showed up, I knew we could defend this crash site. They weren't going to get this bird."

In the end we were victorious in this firefight: "Troops with B Company had killed 66 enemies and the Scout Platoon killed 46, Reed said. There were also 17 enemy wounded." No coalition KIA, five wounded. ... and no video for Al Jazeera. File this as another forgotten victory.