As President Bush arrives in Seattle this morning, anti-Iraq War protestors prepare for a march, and the display of protest banners in the water and on the roads. The P-I hopes for a quick and complete U.S. exit. And the Christian Science Monitor reports on an al-Qaeda In Iraq document recently recovered in a safe house, which paints a pretty bleak picture for the American Left's favorite jihadists. As if the killing of al-Zarqawi weren't depressing enough.
"Here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance," reads the document....."Massive arrest operations" have caused the resistance to "lose many of its elements," it notes. Insurgents are at a further disadvantage by the growing number of trained Iraqi forces, are losing a media campaign "presenting its work as harmful to the population," and suffering from tighter financial restrictions.The result is that US and Iraqi tactics are "creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations," which have "weakened [insurgent] influence," the document reads.
In the New York Post this morning is a Ralph Peters op-ed, "Terrorist Defeatism." He writes:
Iraq's government just released the first insider documents captured from terrorists in the raids surrounding Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death. The contents will horrify America haters in our media but won't surprise Post readers: We're winning. Yeah, the good guys. Our troops. And the Iraqi army. We're winning. We were winning big even before we nailed Zarqawi. The terrorists themselves said so.In their state-of-the-troubled-union message to themselves. According to al Qaeda in Iraq, critics of "stay the course" need to stick it where the sun don't shine........Betcha we'll start hearing that the captured documents are all forgeries - so a badly burned "mainstream" media can get back to reporting "the truth" about Haditha, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. In the meantime, our troops will continue to win this war.
UPDATE: With 42 Democrats joining the majority, The U.S. House this a.m. passes a resolution which affirms support for our country's engagement in Iraq as part of the global war on terrorism, and rejects setting a withdrawal date.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 16, 2006 06:50 AM | Email ThisIt's no coincidence that the Iraq government's formation was completed within hours of the Z-man's termination and the rollup of so many cells. The Z-man was a tool of the Sunni's, his violence used to secure the best deal for power in the new government. As part of the bargain signified by the governments formation, the Sunni's simply abandoned the Z-man with intel to target the 500 pounders.
Posted by: Gary B on June 16, 2006 08:25 AMDo you have any friends or family in the military? I do. They voluntarily enlisted because they believe in the mission. They are aware that they may make the ultimate sacrifice. They are indeed America's finest but I don't really believe that you think so.
What is the amount worth sacrificing for freedom and security?
Posted by: Jeffro on June 16, 2006 08:43 AMCome on, jusify your comments. Discuss please?
katomar, Fred and myself would like to hear from you.
Posted by: Jeffro on June 16, 2006 09:05 AMGary B, please refrain from calling him the "Z-man". A real "man" wouldn't resort to targeting women and children to carbomb to get his way. Z-coward, Z-nut, or Z-chickensh*t will do nicely instead.
Mike, I appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying, but it does none of us any good to embrace that sentiment. Zarqawi was a man, a very evil man. The poison in him is present in all of us, and the potential for commiting acts of horror as well as working great deeds is present in all of us. The work before our community is to repress the brutish impulses and bring forth the impulse to be a force of good in the world. Hiding from our nature does no good.
Posted by: huckleberry on June 16, 2006 09:16 AMYou are entitled to your opinion, but I would also expect you to show the same indignant outrage at the 17,000 murders that were commited last year in this country. And that was just one year.
Posted by: Burdabee on June 16, 2006 09:18 AMAt least our military knows what they are in for. Would you rather have another 4000 innocent Americans die because we did nothing? Yes, they are worth it. And I for one honor them highly for their sacrifice.
Do you not know that the only way we can save ourselves as Americans from the Islam extremists is to convert to Islam? Is that what you want to do? I certainly do not. And in this country we do not impose a religion on anyone. People here are free to practice as they see fit. That is what this country is based on. That is why the pilgrims came here. These islamic extremist believe that if you do not believe as they do, then you are against them and you must be killed. So save yourself if you want. Turn to Islam. If I am attacked I will fight and die before that happens. I will not betray my faith or myself.
Posted by: Shannon C on June 16, 2006 09:20 AMP.S. Depending on where you are writing from, you and I do not attach the same meaning to the phrase ultimate sacrifice for my country.
Posted by: huckleberry on June 16, 2006 09:23 AMI applaud your prior service to our great country, but your heart is in the wrong spot.
There is no blind allegiance here. I hope that we never have to relive 9-11 again, but with your theory and forethought, we will.
The blind allegiance of the Left is ANTI American, and those people should be ashamed of themselves. You are a former serviceman, and are trained to follow orders. Are you saying that all the fine current servicemen/women should go AWOL, because of the Blind Allegiance of the Anti American (TAKE AMERICA BACK) supporters?
BTW, I am not as afraid of the Terrorist that come from Mexico, as I am the ones that come from the SKY !!!!
Posted by: Chris on June 16, 2006 09:26 AMThank you for your service to this great land.
I agree that our southern border needs to be secured but I don't believe that it should delute our mission of fighting terrorism on all fronts. Yes, we've got to get busy on our bordes and ports but we need to be steadfast in Iraq and elsewhere. I don't believe anyone on this site blindly follows GW. He sure as heck beats the alternative.
Posted by: Jeffro on June 16, 2006 09:32 AM2500 in over 3 years, 833 a year.
Consider Antietam 3650 killed in one day.
D-Day 6600 killed
Slapton sands training exercise 600 dead in minutes.
If we compare Iraq to '80 to '82 in the military, Iraq casualties are one third the rate of accidental deaths. Translated the Iraq casualty rate is lower than the rate of death due to accident in the military.
Comparative Analysis of Casualty Rates in American Conflicts
Consider what has been accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan for under 3000 killed in combat.
50 million liberated from Tyranny.
Democratically elected government in both countries.
Constitutions adopted.
Freedom, liberty and security are not free. Sometimes a blood debt is required to secure those things.
In a historic perspective the cost in Iraq is incredibly low.
Posted by: Nospam on June 16, 2006 09:54 AMPardon my slip.
Posted by: JCM on June 16, 2006 10:03 AMYESSSSSS!
Posted by: Michele on June 16, 2006 10:07 AMTerrorism / Islamofascim is a toxin, the toxins are produced and released in the middle east.
Let us suppose a toxic gas is seeping into your house. Which makes more sense. Sealing up your house to prevent it from getting in. Or finding and eliminating the source.
The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq are big steps toward the elimination of the source of this toxin.
If there was anything that I learned in the military it was once you go into defensive mode, you've lost the war. The only victory is from destroying the enemies will, capacity, and means to fight.
1. Capturing/killing Saddam Hussein is certainly justifiable.
2. One would think that Iraqis would want freedom and liberty.
3. The U.S. is more capable than any other country to deliver on both fronts.
However, it's not our problem. I don't think our soldiers, who volunteered to defend our country, should be sacrificed to liberate non-Americans or kill evil dictators who have no effect on our country. It's a noble cause, but there are too many noble causes in this world for us to pursue. And those that are killed in action, are not sacrificed in vain. Indeed, they likely contributed more to the world than any of us. I just think we need to distinguish between doing what is "good for the world" and "worth doing for the U.S." I am heavily biased in favor of "doing what is good for the U.S."
I strongly agree we would be better served with our military redeployed along our borders.
Posted by: nospam on June 16, 2006 10:18 AMWould you mind re-posting that link?
Posted by: huckleberry on June 16, 2006 10:22 AMThe sunspots messed up my link! Yea that's it.
Comparative Analysis of Casualty Rates in American Conflicts
Posted by: JCM on June 16, 2006 10:29 AMThen I suggest you round up your friends and sit in your back yard day and night, protecting the rest of us citizens from the NEXT AIR ATTACK on this country.
Those (am using your words now) "evil dictators who have no effect on our country" sure as hell gave us a wakeup call back in 2001. Wouldn't you agree????
So grab your lawn chair, and look to the sky, I feel better now that NOSPAM is protecting me.
Answers nospam's argument.
Betting on Defeat?
It’s far from a safe bet.
Once a democratically elected Iraqi government emerged, and a national army was trained, the only way we could lose this war was to forfeit it at home, through the influence of an adroit, loud minority of critics that for either base or misguided reasons really does wish us to lose. They really do.
Posted by: JCM on June 16, 2006 10:58 AMso you are advocating sitting at our borders, and waiting for the terrorist to rebuild and attack.... Wow so much for being prepared, especially when they land square in the middle of the US, hundreds of miles from our Borders.....
Take the wait and see route...I can see it now, what used the be the WORLD's most powerful nation, is now called Pansy Pants......Good ole Pansy Pants (USA)....
" I just think we need to distinguish between doing what is "good for the world" and "worth doing for the U.S." I am heavily biased in favor of "doing what is good for the U.S." "
I applaud your honesty and your clarity of thought. However, the USA has ALWAYS done what is good for the world.
Take WWII for instance - why did we go to war in Europe? We weren't threatened by Germany (although Hitler did declare war on us, a huge strategic blunder). Sure, their U-Boats were sinking some of our Merchant Marines re-supplying Britain. But we just needed to stop that resupply, right? Let Europe fend for itself! Hitler won't be a direct threat to the USA for YEARS!
We did it for the good of the world. Which, in turn, is what's best for us.
Posted by: Larry on June 16, 2006 11:09 AMFor that matter when did Vietnam, Korea, and Bosnia attack us? Do you have the same opinion of the D presidents that got us into those as you do Bush?
Posted by: Fred on June 16, 2006 11:16 AMKatomar - I said 9/11 was a direct attack and that is why it made sense to go to Afghanistan. I don't get your Pearl Harbor reference.
If I understand everyone's argument correctly, there is a belief that the 2,500 soldiers lost in Iraq is less than the number of lives we Americans would lose in the future if the U.S hadn't invaded Iraq. Perhaps that is true, but perhaps not. We will never know since we can't undo the invasion, so there isn't much point in arguing further.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for our troops and it's because of my respect and admiration for them that makes it difficult for me to believe sacrificing them is worth it. Sorry if i'm not so quick to change my mind on that.
On a slightly separate not, I'm sure you will all be pleased to know that our beloved Seattle and Shoreline public schools, rather than being populated by the children of our fallen soldiers, are being populated by muslims who are provided free prayer rooms on the taxpayers' dollars. So aren't we kind of losing internally anyway? See an earlier post by Andy MacDonald.
Posted by: nospam on June 16, 2006 11:30 AMThe Intel windfall has devastated both Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni anti-government forces.
Al Qaeda in Iraq Died For Our Sins
You'll never see this in the Seattle Least Intelligence or the Seattle Slimes.
Posted by: JCM on June 16, 2006 11:36 AM1 - where do you get the impression that I am trying to convince you of any English history.
2 - Is your English history replete with the same quality of facts as you have on appeasment and how well things are going in Iraq?
Posted by: Fred on June 16, 2006 11:40 AMFurthermore, the death rate in the Iraq war is comparatively small in relation to almost every other war we have ever fought. And it's much smaller than the murder rate in the US, and the abortion rate in the US. Abortions are a common occurence in the US. Abortion is the slaughter of someone as a trade for something deemed more worthy, without the consent of the victim, and THAT is the definition of sacrifice.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 16, 2006 11:59 AM1 - where do you get the impression that I am trying to convince you of any English history. No, it was a pre-emptive comment (no pun intended).
2 - Is your English history replete with the same quality of facts as you have on appeasment and how well things are going in Iraq? The only fact I have addressed regarding Iraq is the 2,500 dead US soldiers. Are you seriously challenging that fact or are you trying to change the subject? My English history is probably no better than the average American who should know that the British in 1914 were not well regarded in their colonies precisely because they were not democratic nor did they recognize basic human rights. Ever heard of Ghandi?
Posted by: nospam on June 16, 2006 12:00 PMYou say that Hitler and Hussein can't be compared. That's true both for their potential to harm the United States, and for the casualties we've suffered to remove them.
You say Hitler was a MUCH worse threat - and we lost hundreds of thousands of our soldiers in order to defeat him. Meanwhile, Hussein was much less of a threat - and we've lost 2,500.
So what's your point? The greater the threat, the greater the loss to overcome it. On a historic military scale our losses in Iraq have been negligable. You know this all already.
And thanks to Jeff B for pointing out - it isn't the facts that sway you - it's your underlying philosophy that our troops were 'sacrificed'. They're men and women, not children, they volunteered knowing the dangers, and they believe in the mission.
Posted by: Larry on June 16, 2006 12:05 PMWhat you have avoided - by accusing me of changing the subject - is answering my post of 11:37. Repeated here for you...
nospam - we cannot undo the invasion, but we can look at history. We had a 'cease-fire' with Germany that the US signed in 1918 at the end of WWI. In 1932 Hitler tested our resolve. The majority of the world had the same response that you are putting forward now. If we (the US and the allies) did something about it when he first violated the cease-fire it would not have taken nearly as many lives. I doubt it would have taken any where near 1,000 with Hitler's rag-tag units he had then. Instead the D's of the world sat by and said what the D's are saying today. How many millions of lives were lost because we showed Hitler that our word and commitment meant nothing?
Posted by: Fred on June 16, 2006 12:09 PMThe Iraqi lady (don't recall her name) also said that Iran is funding the Shiite militia, primarily in the south of Iraq and that the Sunnis and Shiites are way more of an ever present danger than Al-Qaeda in Iraq. She also claimed that the US media got it wrong about the gold mine of information found in the Al-Qaeda headquarters - some of it might be real, but alot of it is propaganda.
"I have heard that these memos may not be genuine and are instead propaganda..."
1000 bad guys (140ish killed 750ish captured) have been taken out of action as a result of the intel found with Zarqawi, that lends credence to other documents found.
Also look at the targeting by the bad guys, direct assaults on US forces or Iraqi forces virtually non-existent, they used to follow IEDs with ambushes, that is declining. They are attacking softer and softer targets all the time. The memo matches the facts on the ground.
If you followed Haditha, from the moment it went public, there were a lot of questions about the accusations. The accusations didn't match with what was know, just the opposite as the contents of the memo.
Lastly good news from Iraq is the last thing the MSM, or the democrats need or want. There whole current position is based on the assertion that Iraq was a mistake and gone horribly wrong.
The Iran connection is tied up in all the dealings with Iran, again look at European and the democrats approach to the problem. Basically can we make a deal? The Iranian government loses if Iraq stabilizes, democracies on two borders, the US military freed up form Iraq etc...
Do I take everything with a grain of salt, yeah, but the big picture lends weight to the validity of the memo.
Posted by: JCM on June 16, 2006 02:25 PMA first nuclear or WMD strike is unthinkable.
Posted by: South County on June 16, 2006 02:35 PMThe culture in the mideast lends itself to pathological lieing - thanks in part to the religion of peace. I know that blows my cover that I am not politically correct and am subject to being called the name that is equivalent today to being called a Communist in the 1950's.
However, I will say that anyone who attempts to throw out such an accusation can in turn be accused as being a useful idiot to promote cultural Marxism. For further reference see the
following article that was posted yesterday by Stefan:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html
Posted by: KS on June 16, 2006 02:50 PMDocuments found on a flash drive on Zarqawi's dead body - that have resulted in hundreds of terrorists being captured or killed - must be fakes if they tell the story that Al Qaeda is losing and we're winning.
But memos written in MS Word default settings that are presented as being authored in the early 1970s on an IBM Selectrix- for which there is absolutely no other corroborating information and against which the family and assistant of the supposed author have spoken out - must be authentic if they tell the story that President Bush neglected his duties in the Air National Guard.
Who ya gonna believe?
Posted by: Larry on June 16, 2006 02:52 PMAgree 100% - who ya gonna believe?!
Posted by: Jeffro on June 16, 2006 03:12 PMIf conservatives don't just because the President is a Republican, then who will stand beside our Soldiers
Posted by: Remember Heroes on June 16, 2006 05:34 PMI am one of those who has served in the military. And I agree that our border security is atrocious. Bush the president right now and that failure is laid at his door and really his door alone.
However, neither party is serious about border security. Democrats are the last people on earth who will build a fence because that would keep out new voters they need to sway elections. Republicans want cheap labor for their businesses (although there are Democrats too who are more than willing to exploit their status to make a buck) so they don't want to stop the illegals either. Heck Democrats won't even call them illegals, they instead make up silly names such as "undocumented" or simply immigrants. I prefer the term invader.
"How is a war in Iraq going to stop a terrorist sneaking across the Mexican border? It will not!"
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism. Are they they only one? Probably not, but they were certainly one of the most visible. Hussein paid $25K to families of suicide bombers if they would blow themselves up. Now how much more would it take to graduate these people from conventional explosives to include chemical, biological or nuclear?
George Bush has taken a strategic look at the landscape. If you have ants in your house, do you just squash the ones you see, or do you go to the root nest and kill it? If you are smart, you will kill them at the root nest.
For years liberals have told us how Democracy and freedom would never work in the Middle East. that freedom ws incompatible with the Arab culture. And that was fine because we could easily ignore the brutality going on over there. 911 changed all of that. In examining the post 911 landscape, George Bush has come to the conclusion that nothing short of a transition of the Middle East is required. A transition from a system of tribal revenge and outlaws, from the 7th century to the 21st. George Bush has put forth the idea that introducing Democract is our best weapon to prevent people from wanting to become terrorists.
Already, for the first time in over 30 years, the Syrian Army is out of Lebanon. Inspired by the free elections in Iraq, the Lebonese people rose up and kicked out the Syrian military.
Now we can debate the enormity of the challenge, and it is definitely enourmous. But does the enormity of a challenge mean we should not attempt it? How narrow and limiting a view that would be.
George Bush's idea is to use Democracy as a weapon to tranform the nests of terrorism into modern global countries that are not at odds with modernity. So far Afghanistan and Iraq are having free elections where none were before. In WWII Jaoanese youth were indoctrinated to hate and kill Americans. SOme of them were tauhgt so well they became kamikazees. In today's Japan, how many youth do you think would volunteer to become kamikazees against us? Did we get to that point because we appeased Hirohito, bowing down to his rule?
You can criticize Bush's strategy and point out failures along the way. It is always easier to snipe at somone trying to build and accomplish than it is to build and accomplish.
But how would Democrats deal with terrorists? Appeasement has been tried in the past. Neville Chamberlain tried it with Nazi Germany. He declared "Peace in our time." declaring peace doesn't make it so.
So, please tell me how you would deal with nation states that produce people who cannot be reasoned with, whose only goal is to kill you unless you convert to their religion?
So far, under Bush's strategy we have not had another 911 style attack. Could it
Posted by: pbj on June 16, 2006 11:22 PMI strongly agree we would be better served with our military redeployed along our borders. " - NoSpam
That is a rather short view. Like it or not, we are part of the world. What happens in the world affects us sooner or later. Didn't we learn that lesson from WWII? The problem with terrorism is that we have always taken the short view that it is someone else's problem and we ignore it.
But if left unapposed, tyrants, whether they be Hitlers, Ghengis Kahn's or Bin Ladens, will sooner or later, after a string of victories, try to take on the top dog. History is rife with examples.
Did you know that at one time in world history, it was very possible that the armies of Islam would rule the world? They almost conquered all of Europe, brutally imposing their sharia law along the way. Those that refused were beheaded.
Is that what you want? Because that is the vision statement of Islamofascim. They want to bring back the caliphate - global domination by Islam.
Bush has been an utter failure on our border security, I will grant you that. Tell you what, I will bash Bush on this issue to get Republicans to change, but will you bash Democrats for encouraging illegals, marching in their "protests" supporting the invasion of our country? What actions have you taken with regards to Democrats to get them to stop supporting the Mexican invasion?
Here is a link http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp
It explains in detail surrounding the "myth" and the "truth" of what you posted regarding the social security issue and immigrants/illegals.
Happy reading.........
Posted by: Chris on June 17, 2006 11:47 AMSure, but i've been bashing Dems for the illegal alien invasion for some time. I'm also a card carrying member of the Federation for Immigration Reform (www.fairus.org), you should look into it. And considering that I voted for Rossi and Irons, I'm not exactly regarded as a "liberal Democrat" as some earlier posters might believe. It's unfortunate that if anyone contributes to the dialog here with an iota of dissent, they are unleashed upon as the most leftist of liberal democrats...
I just simply question the wisdom that led to the invasion of Iraq, that's all. It's easy to sit here and say it's worth it when you don't have to go to Iraq and risk getting blown up by an IED or a grenade tossed by a muslim American.
As a small correction to your earlier statement, the Ottoman empire that invaded Europe wasn't guided by sharia. And if it was, they weren't very successful- the only country in Eastern Europe that retained Islam after the Turkish retreat was Albania (along with small portions of Serbia such as Kosovo and Bosnia). In fact, protestantism survived better under muslim Ottoman rule than under Catholic Austrian rule. That is why a higher % of people in Burgenland (the most easterly Austrian province) are protestant than in any other Austrian province. But I agree, muslims today (not of the Turkish/ottoman type) are making a strong effort to convert all of Europe and the US to Islam under sharia law and it should be stopped.
As for the notion that we have to get rid of Hussein just as we should have gotten rid of Hitler in 1932, I'm not convinced we were/are facing the same situation.
First of all, liberating Germany (or any part of Europe) is much different. We are talking about people (Americans and Germans in 1932) who generally shared the same ethnicity, religion, culture, history and reverance for ancient Hellenic-inspired democracy. None of that is true for any country in the middle east, so when American troops march through, guns blazing, they are not perceived as liberators no matter how much the people there hated Hussein. Remember one tiny detail, when the statue of Hussein fell and the people cheered, they only cheered after they saw Saddam's head covered with an Iraqi flag. They all groaned disappointment earlier when that young (and naive) US soldier draped an American flag across Hussein's face. He quickly recognized the obvious mistake, took the US flag down and replaced it with an Iraqi flag- then the crowd went wild. I don't think you can emphasize enough the difference between that and the reception US troops received in Europe when the US came through in WWII.