June 19-21, 2007
Jun 19 03:19 Another Democrat-CAIR Connection Jun 19 09:14 Surge Offensive Begins in Diyala Jun 19 14:58 Jimmy Carter Strikes Again Jun 20 11:07 Setting the Record Straight on Haditha Marines Jun 20 16:39 Operation Arrowhead Thunder Yielding Big Results Jun 21 02:40 It Isn't Just Harry Anymore Jun 21 03:24 Now That's a Prediction!!! Jun 21 16:34 Operation Arrowhead Thunder Update
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006
Another Democrat-CAIR Connection
According to this CAIR press release, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, spoke at the CAIR-OH banquet last Saturday night. During his speech, Gov. Strickland made this outrageous statement:
"On behalf of all Ohioans, [my wife and I] appreciate your vision to promote justice and mutual understanding. We gather under CAIR-Ohio's theme this year, 'American Muslims: Connecting and Sharing,' to do just that, to connect and share and get to know each other better."Let's examine that statement. Gov. Strickland says that CAIR's vision is to "promote justice and mutual understanding", which is indefensible considering the fact that they're unindicted co-conspirators in the federal trial against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.
HLF was shut down by the Treasury Department on December 4, 2001. Here's what Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said in his official statement:
Today we are shutting down three Hamas-controlled organizations that finance terror. The Holy Land Foundation masquerades as a charity, while its primary purpose is to fund Hamas. This is not a case of one bad actor stealing from the petty cash drawer and giving those stolen monies to terrorists. This organization exists to raise money in the United States to promote terror.Just so there isn't any question as to CAIR's knowledge about HLF, it's important to note that CAIR's first office was opened in Washington, DC with a $5,000 donation from HLF:
Last year, Holy Land raised $13 million. Government agents today shut down 4 offices of the Holy Land Foundation in the United States. Innocent donors who thought they were helping someone in need deserve protection from these scam artists who prey on their benevolence.
Similarly, the al Aqsa bank and the Beit al Mal bank aren't just banks that unknowingly administer accounts for terrorists. They are direct arms of Hamas, established and used to do Hamas business.
CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Mousa Abu Marzook. In May 1996, CAIR coordinated a press conference to protest the decision of the U.S. government to extradite Marzook for his connection to terrorist acts performed by Hamas. CAIR characterized the extradition as "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American."I think it's obvious that Gov. Strickland was pandering to a rather unsavory organization whose roots are intertwined with terrorist-financing organizations. I'd hope that this wasn't anything more than an error of ignorance but I wouldn't bet on it since there are lots of ties between prominent Democrats and CAIR. Let's also remember that CAIR complained about an LA billboard that called Osama bin-Laden " the sworn enemy ":
For starters, it's on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. One indication came in October 1998, when the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction "offensive to Muslims."If that isn't offensive enough, consider this from that same Daniel Pipes article:
CAIR consistently defends other militant Islamic terrorists too. The conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing it deemed "a travesty of justice." The conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who planned to blow up New York City landmarks, it called a "hate crime." The extradition order for suspected Hamas terrorist Mousa Abu Marzook it labeled "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American."After all that, I'm curious to find out why Gov. Strickland thinks that CAIR's vision is "to promote justice and mutual understanding." What criteria did Gov. Strickland use in determining that promoting justice and mutual understanding were part of CAIR's vision? Did he simply take their word on that? Frankly, Gov. Strickland's staff didn't do a good job of vetting CAIR. If they had, they wouldn't have let him make such an unfounded and outrageous statement.
CAIR doesn't hide the fact that it has a political agenda. Here's an example of CAIR's political agenda:
Working with Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible. Leader Pelosi is a proud cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), and the Safe, Orderly, and Legal Visas Enforcement Act (SOLVE).The Conyers mentioned there is John Conyers, then the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and now the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. That information was taken from a CAIR press release dated Thursday, July 15, 2004. CAIR's goal was to "limit the reach of the Patriot Act..." Their political partners, listed in their press release, were " Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)" and "former Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI), Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-NY), and Congressman Nick Joe Rahall (D-WV)."
Based on this information, it's difficult to defend the notion that CAIR's vision is to "promote justice and mutual understanding." I've studied CAIR's statements of the last year. My conclusion of their statements is that their idea of "mutual understanding" is awfully one-sided in nature. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser points out that CAIR doesn't speak for all Muslims:
M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says the sharp decline in membership calls into question whether the organization speaks for American Muslims, as the group has claimed. "This is the untold story in the myth that CAIR represents the American Muslim population. They only represent their membership and donors," Mr. Jasser said. "Post-9/11, they have marginalized themselves by their tired exploitation of media attention for victimization issues at the expense of representing the priorities of the American Muslim population," Mr. Jasser said.CAIR would like people to believe that the Muslim community is monolithic, which isn't reality. They'd also like people to believe that they're the 'official voice' for that monolith much like Jesse Jackson would like people to continue believing that he's the official voice for African Americans.
It's time that Gov. Strickland understood that it's likely that CAIR's days as an influential special interest group will soon be history. It's important that Gov. Strickland distance himself from CAIR, especially in light of the fact that they've had so many interactions with organizations that finance terrorists.
Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:20 AM
No comments.
Surge Offensive Begins in Diyala
This AP article disputes the validity of Harry Reid's opinion about Iraq. A topnotch military strategist, he isn't. Let's get straight to the facts rather than accept Reid's opinion:
About 10,000 U.S. soldiers launched an offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq northeast of Baghdad early Tuesday, killing at least 22 insurgents, the U.S. military said.It's obvious that Harry Reid's statements that the surge had failed and that the war is lost are purely political statements. Based on recent polling, he's paid a steep political price for expressing those opinions. That's as it should be.
The raids, dubbed "Operation Arrowhead Ripper," took place in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province, and involved air assaults under the cover of darkness, the military said in a statement. The operation was still in its opening stages, it said.
On Monday, military officials said U.S. and Iraqi forces had launched attacks on Baghdad's northern and southern flanks to clear out Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida fighters and Shiite militiamen who had fled the capital and Anbar during a four-month-old security operation.
We can't stop Reid from making such stupid comments. What we can do is make him and Democrats pay a steep political price for saying them. That's what I intend to do. If they were smart, Democrats would shut up and let the surge play out. That said, we know that that isn't what will happen.
Democrats keep moving the yardsticks in determining whether the surge is working and whether we're winning the war. First they said that Baghdad was a war zone. About that, they were right. Then the first surge troops arrived and Gen. Petraeus put them to use in cleaning out some of the worst neighborhoods.
Then Democrats said that there were other neighborhoods in Baghdad that were hotbeds of insurgency. Again, Gen. Petraeus focused troops on those neighborhoods, sending Muqtada al-Sadr fleeing to Tehran and al-Qa'ida terrorists and Sunni insurgents fleeing to Anbar and Diyala provinces. The al-Qa'ida terrorists and Sunni insurgents that fled to Anbar were greeted with a hail of bullets and fierce resistance. Those that fled to Diyala were greeted with less hostility.
Until now, that is. Now that Gen. Petraeus has the full complement of surge troops in theater, he's using them in this major offensive to destroy their capabilities, kill insurgents and terrorists while diminishing their firepower. Based on these early reports, I'd say that they're off to a strong start. I suspect that that trend will continue.
I'm basing that opinion on the fact that every article I've read about Gen. Petraeus says that he's the expert on waging counterinsurgency war. As Fred Thompson notes, Gen. Petraeus "literally wrote the book" on fighting counterinsurgencies. Let's also look at the underlying principles behind the Democrats' talking the war down.
Let's start by saying that Democrats have to talk this war down if their presidential candidates are to stand any chance of winning in 2008. Let's also say that their Nutroots base demands that they talk negatively about the war. If they don't talk Iraq down, the campaign contribution spigot shuts off.
"We are going into the areas that have been sanctuaries of al-Qaida and other extremists to take them on and weed them out, to help get the areas clear and to really take on al-Qaida," the senior official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the operation. "Those are areas in the belts around Baghdad, some parts in Anbar province and specifically Diyala province."It sounds like the initial surge was successful in driving the terrorists and insurgents out of Baghdad and its suburbs. It also sounds like Gen. Petraeus is taking a methodical approach by cleaning out the sanctuaries to which the remaining terrorists fled.
Some Sunni tribes, which had fought with or offered sanctuary to al-Qaida in Anbar province, have risen up against the group and are now receiving arms and training from U.S. forces. American military officials are trying to spread that success to al-Qaida areas now under attack.Suffice it to say that AQI terrorists are having a difficult time finding cities that will provide them sanctuary. If that pattern continues from now until September, the Iraqi landscape will have changed dramatically. That means that the political climate on Capitol Hill is likely to have changed, too. If Iraq actually improves, I suspect Democratic presidential candidates will be dodging questions about why they talked down the war effort.
When that day comes, we'll know that we've won the war in Washington and the war in Iraq. That can't happen soon enough.
Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:15 AM
No comments.
Jimmy Carter Strikes Again
Jimmy Carter's at it again, this time criticizing President Bush because he isn't doing anything to bring Hamas and Fatah together. This Reuters article provides a glimpse into Carter's warped mind.
Carter, on a visit to Dublin, said the United States and Israel had done "everything they could to prevent accommodation between Hamas and Fatah". "Lately, the United States has been giving military aid to Fatah in order to conquer Hamas in Gaza," Carter told reporters after addressing a human rights forum in Dublin.I doubt that Carter has noticed or cares about this but Hamas started a civil war against Fatah. For that matter, I'd doubt that he's noticed that Hamas hates Israel and wants to destroy them. Given those facts, I don't see why Israel and the United States shouldn't be doing everything it can, short of cutting off food and other life support items, to undermine Hamas.
"Fatah could not prevail because of the fervent commitment of some of the Hamas fighters and because of their discipline," he added.That sounds like he's complimenting Hamas' terrorists, doesn't it? And they wonder why he's considered the worst president of the twentieth century and the worst ex-president of the twentieth century?
Carter, who brokered the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978, said moves to give Palestinians assistance in the West Bank was an attempt to "reward them", while continuing to "punish" the 1.5 million aid-dependent Palestinians in Gaza. "This effort to divide Palestine into two peoples now, I think it is a step in the wrong direction," Carter said. "There is no effort being made outside to bring the two together."Mr. Carter, Hamas is a terrorist organization that isn't interested in 'coming together'. They're interested in dominance and destruction. The reason why there "is no effort...to bring the two together" is because we want to see Hamas devastated. We aren't interested in appeasing murderous behavior nor should we be. As for his statement that we're rewarding Fatah while punishing Hamas, I'd simply say this: It isn't wise to reward murderous behavior. Any competent parent will tell you that they reward children for their good behavior and discipline their children for their bad behavior.
That shouldn't be a difficult concept for Carter to grasp but it's obvious that it is.
Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:58 PM
Comment 1 by eric at 20-Jun-07 02:24 PM
Easy to say that Jimmy Carter was the worst President when posting from your high horse. What have *you* done recently other than whine and moan? Carter didn't have an easy term by any means with everything that was happening at the time like the oil "shortage" and hostage situation but his next two successors surely helped screw up the world's affairs far more than he did, or have you forgotten that Reagan and Bush Sr. helped Osama get into his position of power *and* aided Iraq simply because they were our enemy's enemy. THAT my friend makes anything that Carter did pale in comparison.
Comment 2 by Leo Pusateri at 20-Jun-07 03:00 PM
Eric, Carter was the main architect of global jihadism!
Have you forgotten the glowing recommendation and praise he lavished upon Ayatollah Khomeni when he allowed same to get into power?
And he continues to this day to prop up every thug, terrorist and tinhorn dictator known to humanity.
Face it, Eric--you don't have a high horse on which to ride.
You have a jackass.
Comment 3 by Mike Toomey, San Diego, California at 21-Jun-07 11:35 AM
Jimmy is considered the worst president of the twentieth century and the worst ex-president of the twentieth century (should be ever)simply BECAUSE HE IS!
Comment 4 by Adam at 22-Jun-07 03:21 PM
"Any competent parent will tell you that they reward children for their good behavior and discipline their children for their bad behavior."
It's funny to me that we should consider ourselves parents to these poor orphaned people who have no possible way of making decisions for themselves. Only Americans know best. ;)
Comment 5 by john norland at 25-Jun-07 02:48 PM
Hamas was the elected government, Fatah is the insurgent force, American and Isreal refulse to recognize Hamas. What a deal. High school GED should be min requirement for president, not think our GOP could pass.
Setting the Record Straight on Haditha Marines
If you're interested in knowing the truth about the injustice being visited on the Haditha Marines, tonight's Kit Jarrell's Blog Talk Radio Show is must listening. The show airs at 9:00 pm CT. For those so moved, the number to call to participate in tonight's show is (646) 915-9926.
Tonight's show will focus on the numerous injustices being visited upon these valiant Marines. I'll be part of the panel tonight, along with Tim Harrington and Darryl Sharratt.
Mr. Sharratt is the father of Justin Sharratt, one of the Marines currently under investigation. Lcpl. Sharratt's Article 32 Hearing (the military equivalent of a grand jury) ended last Friday, June 15. I suspect that Mr. Sharratt will have alot to say about how his son has been treated and whether he'll be court-martialed.
I suspect that Tim Harrington will talk about the evidence that he's dug up that will, in my opinion, exonerate the Haditha Marines. Most people aren't familiar with Tim because he's kept a low profile until now. It isn't a stretch to say that Tim's the expert on the Haditha Marines. You don't want to miss Tim because he's passionate, knowledgeable and articulate when it comes to the Haditha Marines.
I'll talk about the possible political ramifications of this sad chapter in military history. I'll specifically focus on the role John Murtha played in hanging these courageous Marines out to dry. To the point, I'll be talking about the taped testimony of the S2 intelligence officer monitoring the Haditha insurgent attack. This testimony was just declassified. As I said in this post, it refutes most, if not all, of Murtha's accusations. I'll also talk about the specific, and unfounded, accusations that Murtha has made against these courageous Marines.
Tim, Darryl and I will be on the entire hour discussing this travesty. If you want to help right this injustice, tune into tonight's show. I'm certain that we'll tell you what you can do to help.
Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:08 AM
No comments.
Operation Arrowhead Thunder Yielding Big Results
That's the main thing to be learned from this LA Times article. Look what's in the opening paragraphs of their article:
At least 30 suspected insurgents have been killed in two days of operations being conducted in Diyala province as part of a major thrust by U.S. and Iraqi forces to clear Al Qaeda operatives from the region, the military said today.Yesterday I quoted this AP article as saying that "at least 22 insurgents" were killed in the opening day of Operation Arrowhead Thunder. This LA Times article now puts that total as "at least 30 suspected insurgents" having been killed in the first two days and that "more than 1,000 roadside bombs" have been found "around the provincial capital, Baqubah, where the offensive is being conducted."
Soldiers conducting Operation Arrowhead Thunder also have uncovered more than 1,000 roadside bombs around the provincial capital, Baqubah, where the offensive is being conducted, Iraqi security officials said.
Forgive me if I'm finding it more difficult to trust Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's claim that the surge has already failed. If this is what happens when the offensive fails, then let's all hope that we experience such 'failures' with increasing frequency.
That's before we talk about this USA Today article, which is titled "Tribes Help U.S. Against al-Qaeda". (H/T: Powerline)
More than 10 Iraqi tribes in the Baghdad area have reached agreements with U.S. and Iraqi forces for the first time to oppose al-Qaeda, raising the U.S. military's hopes that a trend started in western Iraq is spreading here.Take a look at that first paragraph:
Some of the groups, which have members who fought alongside al-Qaeda in the past, have been providing useful intelligence to U.S. forces about their former allies, according to the U.S. military.
"They know where they live and who they are," said Lt. Col. Rick Welch, a staff officer who works with tribes in the capital area. "They know how they operate." Some tribes are also taking up arms against al-Qaeda allies.
More than 10 Iraqi tribes in the Baghdad area have reached agreements with U.S. and Iraqi forces for the first time to oppose al-Qaeda, raising the U.S. military's hopes that a trend started in western Iraq is spreading here.Those who've been following the surge closely have noticed a positive pattern emerging, namely that Sunnis are turning on Sunni terrorists. Like the USA article says, that trend started in Anbar Province as far back as February. At the time that I first heard the news about the sheikhs turning against AQI, I was cautiously optimistic. The troops are finally in theater and the preparatory missions have been accomplished. Now the troops have launched a full-scale offensive and the initial reports are sounding promising.
The most important thing that we must remember is that this trend wouldn't have had a chance of getting started had John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had their way, especially if Murtha had his way. Had Democrats been setting the policy for Iraq, none of this would've happened. America's national security would've been compromised because AQI would've likely started building training bases in Anbar. AQI would've been able to solidify their stranglehold on the Iraqi people, too.
Let's remember that the mere mention of the surge persuaded Muqtada al-Sadr to take a 'Tehran sabbatical', too.
Here's proof of the trend:
U.S. commanders have reached similar deals in Sunni-dominated Anbar province in western Iraq. Attacks there have dropped by 60% in the last year, according to the U.S. military. Tribes in Diyala province north of Baghdad are also negotiating with U.S. forces, which have launched a major offensive in the region.Let's see if this offensive reinforces the trend as they sweep through Diyala. I'm betting that it will continue. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the trend spreading as the offensive continues.
If the change is noticeable, the political landscape in Washington, DC will undergo a dramatic change. I won't bet against Gen. Petraeus on that, though I'd bet the ranch that Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's and John Murtha's will fail miserably.
Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:39 PM
No comments.
It Isn't Just Harry Anymore
Prior to this week, Harry Reid was the only congressional leader that said the mission had failed. Based on this Hill article, the 'disease' is spreading:
Addressing the liberal pressure group Campaign for America's Future, Pelosi called the war in Iraq a "tragedy" and a "grotesque mistake," but her words elicited catcalls for her to do more.This is a classic example of what happens when a politician doesn't have the facts on their side. It's called pandering and it's been with us since the ratification of our Constitution. You know that it's pandering because Ms. Pelosi isn't willing to tell the anti-war fanatics in her party that it's in America's best interest to defeat the terrorists in Iraq. She's been totally unwilling to tell them that Democrats have a responsibility to act like adults now that they're in the majority.
Ms. Pelosi won't do that. She knows that the minute Pelosi's Democrats show a spine and a conscience by acting in the best interests of the country instead of pandering to the irresponsible left, she knows that the campaign contribution spigot dries up. Telling the irresponsible left to grow up would require leadership and fortitude, virtually nonexistent traits in the Democratic Party these days.
Even Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading anti-war Democrat and close Pelosi ally, did not escape the taunting as he introduced Pelosi. "She's worked tirelessly to end" this war, Murtha said. "No she hasn't," shouted a woman in the crowd.That's quite the irritable bunch of activists. I don't blame them for being upset. hey were sold a bill of goods by a spineless bunch of powermongers. Then again, the Lieberman Democrats have every right to be equally upset because there were a bunch of southern candidates that ran as moderates but who are governing as Pelosi liberals.
A number of those attending said they were undecided on the 2008 race, but several of those interviewed by The Hill said they could not vote for Clinton because of her war record. "I thought it was the same old, same old," Carol Dragone, of Virginia Beach, Va., said of Clinton's speech. "I don't know how you can change so quick." Dragone and others said Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) seemed insincere in their denunciation of the war, particularly after casting several votes to continue funding.Ms. Dragone's statement about quick changes reminded me of this old joke:
"I don't want to vote for Hillary in the primary," Jane Dugdale, of Bryn Mawr, Pa., said. "I've been troubled by what [some candidates] didn't say regarding Iraq, especially Clinton and Obama."
Q: How do you give a chameleon a nervous breakdown?
A: Put him on plaid.
The point is that Hillary's trying to cover her bases depending on which group she's addressing. Imagine what it'll be like the night she delivers her acceptance speech. If she talks about Iraq, she risks getting booed by the anti-war left. If she doesn't talk about Iraq, general election voters will wonder why she didn't talk about the biggest issue of our generation.
The anti-war true believers know that Hillary isn't a true believer. That's why their support for her is half-hearted. I don't doubt that they'll vote for her but they won't run through walls for her and they certainly won't spread Hillary's 'gospel' the way that winning candidates need them to.
When President Bush ran for re-election, he campaigned on defeating the jihadists, keeping taxes low and appointing strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. That set of core beliefs united the GOP. As a result, the GOTV operations were a thing of beauty. As a result, Bush increased his vote totals by over 9 million votes, going from 50,456,000 to 59,459,000.
The talk in the Agenda Media is that Republicans are split. There's some truth to that, though not to the extent that the Agenda Media would have you believe. There isn't any talk about the divide that appears whenever candidates talk about Iraq.
Posted Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:42 AM
No comments.
Now That's a Prediction!!!
The surge offensive is going so well that a general is making this bold prediction:
"We're going to finish off those neighborhoods by August," he told AP. "The people are really responding well, establishing very quickly neighborhood watch organizations and a police precinct headquarters now in every neighborhood," he said.Here's the opening paragraphs of the article:
A U.S. Marine commander in Anbar province predicted that al-Qaida fighters will be expelled from Fallujah by August as the military moves to cut insurgent supply and reinforcement lines into Baghdad and surrounding areas.Thus far, I've heard nothing but positives about Operation Arrowhead Thunder. This just adds more good news to the already impressive results that we're hearing about. This LA Times article talks about "Soldiers conducting Operation Arrowhead Thunder also have uncovered more than 1,000 roadside bombs around the provincial capital, Baqubah."
Brig. Gen. John Allen, the deputy commander for American forces west of Baghdad, said al-Qaida in Iraq has largely been pushed out of population centers in much of the Anbar province. He cited the success in turning Sunni tribes against the organization and an influx of American troops to chase al-Qaida out of Iraqi and regions around the capital.
"The vast majority of them have been pushed out of the population centers," Allen said Wednesday in an interview with the AP. "The surge has given us the troops we needed to really clear those areas, so we cleared them and we stayed."
He said U.S. and Iraqi troops were trying to repeat recent success in calming Ramadi, the provincial capital, using the same neighborhood-by-neighborhood tactics in Fallujah, a Sunni insurgent bastion that was first cleared by a massive American assault in 2004.
"We're going to finish off those neighborhoods by August," he told AP. "The people are really responding well, establishing very quickly neighborhood watch organizations and a police precinct headquarters now in every neighborhood," he said.
Here's the highlights of this USA Today article:
More than 10 Iraqi tribes in the Baghdad area have reached agreements with U.S. and Iraqi forces for the first time to oppose al-Qaeda, raising the U.S. military's hopes that a trend started in western Iraq is spreading here.If this keeps up much longer, the Agenda Media won't be able to give Democratic presidential candidates the political cover they'll need to win the White House in 2008. In fact, these reports should scare Hillary and Obama because they've got to know that they can't win if there's dramatic improvement in Iraq.
Some of the groups, which have members who fought alongside al-Qaeda in the past, have been providing useful intelligence to U.S. forces about their former allies , according to the U.S. military.
More importantly, AQI should be worrying because it's obvious that the surge is eliminating AQI's sanctuaries. Then there's this article that can't be overlooked:
The fighting began after some police patrols were attacked there Sunday night, a police officer and an official in the town's health department said, both on condition of anonymity out of security concerns. Some local tribesman had joined the fight, siding with Iraqi police in trying to oust the militiamen from their town, the officials said.Based on the extensive reporting, things are collapsing for al-Sadr's militias and AQI's terrorists. If this keeps up much longer, Iran's worries will be justified.
If this continues, Hillary and Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Murtha will be more nervous than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.
Posted Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:25 AM
No comments.
Operation Arrowhead Thunder Update
This London Free Press article offers some new insights into the positive results that are becoming more commonplace in Diyala and Anbar provinces.
An Associated Press reporter in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province to the north and east of Baghdad, reported intense gunbattles in the streets and around the main market district as American and Iraqi forces sought to clear the city of al-Qaida fighters.It's interesting to hear the Iraqi general using the terms insurgents and al-Qa'ida in the same sentence. To me, that's proof that the quality of their intelligence is high, which is the key to defeating the insurgents and terrorists. If citizens are outing insurgents and terrorists, then their 'camouflage' isn't effective. If they can't hide, they can't win.
Gen. Abdul-Karim al-Rubaie, an Iraqi military commander in Diyala, said security forces had ringed the city and were not letting anyone come or go. He said many al-Qaida fighters had hidden their weapons and were trying to flee.
"We fear that the insurgents want to mingle with civilians...Citizens have given us the names of hundreds of al-Qaida elements who have quit fighting and are hiding in their houses in Baqouba. These people are going to be arrested after the end of the battles," the general said.
The latest military report on the Diyala offensive, which began Monday night, said U.S.-led forces had killed 41 insurgents, discovered five weapons caches and destroyed 25 bombs and five booby-trapped houses.
The other thing I liked about this report was that the military has kept killing the bad guys while discovering weapons caches and limiting their ability to fight back. Degrading their offensive capabilities removes their intimidation factor.
The head of a Sunni insurgent group that has turned against al-Qaida in Diyala province and is co-operating with U.S. and Iraqi forces in the area said his fighters were participating in the operations and had succeeded in clearing several neighbourhoods in eastern and western Baqouba.I want to know more about the extent to which the Iraqi military is pressing the fight. If they're shouldering a big portion of the load, then we've reached a true tipping point. If they're stepping up and they're defeating the jihadists and insurgents, then US generals certainly would have to be smiling. Let's just hope that's what's happening.
The group leader, who declined to be identified for fear of retribution, spoke as his fighters linked arms, chanted and danced. Women ululated in celebration. An AP reporter also saw residents in the Mustafa area in western Baqouba serving food to the former insurgent fighters. Other residents began repairing their shops.
These are just part of this article's reporting. I strongly encourage you to follow the link above and read the entire article. When you read it all, you'll see that there's lots to be optimistic about.
Posted Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:36 PM
No comments.
